Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ILFORD CORPORATION BILL (by Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — REFUGEE PROBLEM, EUROPE

Major Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to make a statement on the present and future relations with the Inter-Governmental Committee for European Migration and with the President's Escapee Programme, operated by the United States' State Department and administered by the Mutual Security Administrator in Europe; and why it has not been possible to co-ordinate British and United States efforts towards the solution of the refugee and surplus population problem in Europe.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): As regards the Inter-Governmental Committee for European Migration, I would refer to my reply to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Noel-Baker) on 17th December, 1952.
The President's Escapee Programme is not an international programme, but the British authorities in Western Germany give all possible assistance to its representatives. Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government are both members of the Advisory Committee to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Major Beamish: Is my hon. Friend aware that the way in which this refugee problem is handled is bound to have an

important effect on the future of the occupied countries; that since I.R.O. came to an end there has been, without any doubt at all, a lot of overlapping between various bodies set up by the free countries, resulting in loss of time, loss of effort and loss of money; and can I appeal to him to look at this question again to see whether it is not possible to avoid this overlapping?

Mr. Nutting: I am looking at this question with that very idea in view, but I should prefer to have a little more time, if I may, to conduct an investigation into the matter before answering my hon. and gallant Friend.

Mr. Younger: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are very many people who think it is wrong that Her Majesty's Government should not be members of the Inter-Governmental Committee for European Migration, which is, if not the main one, one of the organisations upon which a new system of dealing with refugees, particularly in Germany, should be dealt with?

Mr. Nutting: The difficulty is that we cannot afford the cost of this organisation at the present time, but that is, of course, without prejudice to the future, and it will be kept under consideration.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Can my hon. Friend say what would be the cost involved? Is he not aware that when it was discussed in this House last year he said, I think, that it involves only about £70,000; and would it not be a great gesture to European unity if we belonged to this organisation, as we are the only country in Europe not a member?

Mr. Nutting: I have said that the answer which I gave to the right hon. Member for Derby, South was without prejudice to the future. I should prefer not to go any further at this stage.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUDAN (SELF-GOVERNMENT STATUTE)

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to make a statement on the progress of his negotiations for the future of the Sudan.

Mr. Nutting: My right hon. Friend hopes to be able to make a further statement very shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — KOREA

U.N. Reconstruction Agency (U.K. Contribution)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how much Her Majesty's Government are to subscribe to the United Nations Korean Reconstruction Agency, following the recent appeal made by Mr. Donald Kingsley, the Agent-General of the Agency.

Mr. Nutting: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) on 28th January. I have since heard that the Agent-General for Korean Reconstruction is fully satisfied with arrangements regarding the United Kingdom contribution.

Mr. Thomson: Can the Joint Under-Secretary give us an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will, through the United Nations, press this urgent question of reconstruction, which has been badly held up by the military administration in Korea?

Mr. Nutting: We have fulfilled every pledge we have made in relation to the Reconstruction Agency. We have, as the hon. Gentleman will see if he looks at the answer given by my right hon. Friend on 28th January, pledged up to £2,800,000 towards this end.

Mr. Fernyhough: Has the Joint Under-Secretary seen the latest reports, which show an appalling state of affairs in Korea now; and will be give an assurance that the plea that the work of reconstruction should be started immediately will receive the full support of Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Nutting: Of course the work of reconstruction in Korea will receive the full support of Her Majesty's Government, as indeed the contributions we have made towards that work have amply proved.

GREECE (EXPROPRIATED BRITISH PROPERTY)

Major Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the recent action of the Greek Government in expropriating the freehold estates of a

British Company, namely, the Lake Copais Company, Limited; and what action Her Majesty's Government is taking to protect the interests of this company.

Mr. Nutting: Yes, Sir. A decree of the Greek Government dated 15th August, 1952, provided for the expropriation of the estates of the Lake Copais Company. Her Majesty's Government have several times pointed out to the Greek Government that, while not questioning its sovereign right to expropriate the property, they expect prompt and adequate compensation to be paid to the company. Since no agreement between the company and the Greek Government has been reached upon the amount of compensation, my right hon. Friend has instructed Her Majesty's Ambassador at Athens to pursue the question with the Greek Government.

Major Beamish: Is my hon. Friend aware that if the Greek Government insist upon this expropriation, however inappropriate it may seem to us, the least we can expect in this House from a friendly Conservative Government, which the Greek Government now have, is that compensation shall be assessed upon a factual basis and should be payable in sterling or any currency readily convertible?

Mr. Nutting: I will, of course, bear that consideration in mind. A further factor which I would draw to the attention of my hon. and gallant Friend is that the company has challenged the validity of the expropriation decree before the Greek Council of State, and that the Council of State has meanwhile issued an injunction prohibiting the expropriation pending its own decision. That, I think, has had something to do with the delay which has taken place.

GERMANY

British Subjects (Visas)

Mr. Vane: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why British subjects are still required to pay for visas to visit Germany, when the nationals of other occupying Powers do not require a visa.

Mr. Nutting: The only occupying Power in Western Germany whose


nationals do not require visas is the United States, as the result of a recent agreement. Under this agreement, American citizens do not require visas, and Germans visiting the United States receive visas without payment. Negotiations for a similar visa agreement between the United Kingdom and the German Federal Republic are in progress. Meanwhile, British nationals under the age of 25 are receiving free visas.

British Secret Service (Allegations)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many of the 47 British agents who were executed by the Germans at Mauthausen during 1942–43 were of British nationality; and what were their names and ranks.

Mr. Nutting: As regards the first part of the Question, the answer is "None," Sir. The second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Lewis: The Joint Under-Secretary will be aware of the fact that in the previous answer he admitted there were 50 of those agents who were working for the British and who were dropped into the hands of the Germans, and as the Foreign Office said that this was due to neglect on the part of S.O.E., can the Joint Under-Secretary inform me whether or not the three who survived execution gave any evidence at the so-called "inquiry" which was held by the Foreign Office into this episode?

Mr. Nutting: I cannot say offhand exactly who gave evidence at the inquiry that was held at the time and after the war. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down that question.

Herr Krupp

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether negotiations with the Bonn Government regarding the former assets of Herr Krupp have now been concluded; and if he will report their effect to the House.

Mr. Nutting: I have nothing yet to add to the reply given to the hon. Member on 4th February.

Mr. Fletcher: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the very disturbing statement in the "Manchester Guardian" that an agreement had been reached with

Herr Krupp and that the Bonn Government had decided that they could not guarantee any undertaking given by Herr Krupp that he would not re-enter the coal and iron and steel industry? Can the Minister give an assurance that there is no truth in that report, which I am sure will be very disturbing to all sections in the House?

Mr. Nutting: I prefer not to say anything further on this subject until negotiations with the German Federal Government have been concluded. When those negotiations have been concluded, a full report will be made, of course, to the House.

Military Training, Britain

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why facilities are being given for the training of German officers and non-commissioned officers as instructors in Britain; and to what extent these arrangements include provisions for the training of airmen.

Mr. Nutting: Certain proposals for association between our Forces and those of the European Defence Community were recently communicated to the six signatories of the European Defence Community Treaty. No detailed arrangements or commitments have yet been made but the proposals envisage the cooperation of our Forces in the training of all three Services. Since the European defence forces will form an important part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's European command, it is in Britain's own interests to help to promote their efficiency.

Mr. Chetwynd: But is it right to take this very risky gesture at this time when the E.D.C. has not been ratified by Western Germany, when there is a recrudescence of Nazism there, when our own air training facilities are being cut down, and when the public conscience has not recovered from the effects of German bombing in the last war?

Mr. Nutting: As regards the last part of the supplementary question, it will not have escaped the attention of the hon. Gentleman that the E.D.C. forces will contain no German Luftwaffe. These are only proposals that we have put forward in an effort to help along the creation of the European Defence Community. Any


training requirements that will be decided upon will have to be co-ordinated with the extensive training requirements of out own Forces in Germany.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the hon. Gentle. man understand that while it may be necessary under E.D.C. to undertake the training of German troops in Germany or on the Continent, any attempt to train German troops in this country will meet with the strongest opposition?

Mr. Nutting: I understand it is anticipated that the training of E.D.C. forces with British Forces will take place primarily with the British Army of the Rhine and the British Tactical Air Force in Germany, but I see nothing objection. able to training individual members and allowing individual members of the European Defence Community forces, of whatever nationality, to come and train in British staff colleges and in other units where N.C.O.'s of the European Defence Community can best be trained.

Mr. Shinwell: Do we understand from what the hon. Gentleman has just said that the Government have taken a firm decision in this matter, and that it is their intention to allow Germans to come to this country to be trained in British staff colleges? Is that a firm decision?

Mr. Nutting: The right hon. Gentleman clearly did not hear my original answer when I said that no final commitments have been made. We have merely put forward proposals to the Interim Commission of the European Defence Community for their consideration and discussion with us.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Could the hon. Gentleman say whether we or the Bonn Government would pay for these training facilities?

Mr. Nutting: I should like notice of that.

Major Beamish: Why should the party opposite be trying to wriggle out of the logical outcome of their own policy?

Mr. J. Hynd: While the Minister may be right in saying that there is no sound technical reason why this should not take place, does he not appreciate that there are strong psychological reasons why it should not be done?

Mr. Nutting: I have said that primarily the training will take place with the British Army of the Rhine and with the British Tactical Air Force, but for myself I see no reason why other training facilities should not be made available to individual officers and N.C.O.s in this country.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Would it not he right to say that if and when a German Army does come into E.D.C. and they are to be equipped with British equipment such as tanks and other fighting vehicles, they must learn about those things, and that the only possible places where they can learn are in the training establishments of this country? There are no training establishments of that sort in Germany.

Mr. Nutting: Of course, and no doubt they will be equipped with whatever armaments the Board of Commissioners of the European Defence Community sees fit to order. That is, as the House knows, an international programme which will be under the control of the Board of Commissioners. Might I also point out that this is the logical outcome of the policy of the late Government and the logical outcome of the Washington Declaration for which they were responsible.

Mr. Shinwell: Nothing of the sort.

Mr. Ede: Are we to understand from the answers of the hon. Gentleman that an intimation has been given to the European Defence Community that if the facilities to train those people in this country should be asked for, they will be granted?

Mr. Nutting: The right hon. Gentleman, if I may respectfully suggest it, should read the answer that I have given. No final commitments have been entered into, but certain proposals for common training between the British Forces and the E.D.C. forces have been made to the Interim Commission of the E.D.C.

Mr. Chetwynd: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

UNITED STATES (McCARRAN ACT)

Mr. Morley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has yet received any reply to the Note addressed by Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires, Washington, to the State Department on 24th December, 1952, on the subject of the screening of British seamen.

Mr. Nutting: No, Sir.

Mr. Morley: Can the Joint Under-Secretary give us his assurance that the Foreign Secretary will continue with his representations on this matter to the United States Administration until this screening is stopped, because in the big ports of this country it is doing considerable harm to the relations between this country and the United States of America?

Mr. Nutting: This is one of the considerations which my right hon. Friend has in mind, and that was the consideration that we put to the United States Government in a Note that we addressed to them on 24th December. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the fact that we have not had a reply to that Note does not mean that the present United States Administration intend to do nothing about it.

Mr. Beswick: Has this screening in practice been extended to air crews, and, if so, what happens to the members of the crew of an aircraft if they are discovered to have un-American political views?

Mr. Nutting: In regard to aircrew, I understand that no difficulties have arisen.

Mr. Beswick: Have the authorities found a way of suspending them in the air until the aircraft is ready to return?

Mr. Ede: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the questioning of British seamen in the United States ports under the McCarran Act was discussed between Mr. Dulles and himself when the former was in this country recently.

Mr. Nutting: No, Sir.

Mr. Ede: Will the hon. Gentleman take a further opportunity of bringing to

the notice of the United States authorities the point that if a seafaring constituent of mine being screened shows some enthusiasm for serving under the Red Duster that is not to be taken as a Communist affiliation?

Mr. Nutting: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend will do everything possible to protect his constituent.

CHINA

U.N. Representation

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will instruct the United Kingdom delegate to the United Nations to propose a resolution that the question of the proper representation of China on the Security Council be referred to the International Court for an advisory judgment.

Mr. Nutting: No, Sir.

Mr. Swingler: Would it not be helpful to have a judicial opinion about this matter? Is there not some international law governing the representation of States at U.N.O., or is it determined solely by a majority of the Member States? Although it might not be possible to accept the present Chinese Government until a Korean armistice is concluded, would it not be helpful towards that end to get the seats on the Security Council declared vacant?

Mr. Nutting: As the Minister of State informed the House the other day at Question time, it is not possible under the terms of the Charter, so we are advised. to declare the Chinese seat vacant. It is not a practicable possibility. In regard to the Question that the hon. Gentleman has on the Paper, any change in Chinese representation is a matter for the United Nations themselves and not for the International Court.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Is there not a credentials committee, and would it not be possible for that committee to take action in this matter and to decide that as the Chinese were no longer representative of a government in control of China, they were not the acceptable representatives?

Mr. Nutting: The credentials committee may not decide this matter. The final decision must rest with the United Nations and with a majority in the United Nations voting upon this subject.

Security (British Policy)

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make clear in the Security Council of the United Nations that Her Majesty's Government will reconsider her participation in the Korean war in the event of either a naval blockade on China, the bombing of the Chinese mainland by United Nations aircraft, or if there is active United States military support for a military offensive against the Chinese People's Government by General Chiang Kai-shek's Forces.

Mr. Nutting: The policy of Her Majesty's Government in relation to the various hypotheses referred to by the hon. Gentleman has been made- plain to the House on previous occasions by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. I have nothing to add to these statements.

Mr. Donnelly: Can the hon. Gentleman make it perfectly clear that Her Majesty's Government would view with great alarm any intention to carry out any of these hypotheses at the moment?

Mr. Nutting: I think it has been made plain to the House that the view and policy of Her Majesty's Government is to conclude an armistice as soon as possible in Korea upon fair and honourable terms and meanwhile to avoid any extension of the conflict.

MIDDLE EAST (BRITISH BASES)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what Government in the Middle East have recently been approached by him with a view to arranging British military bases in their countries.

Mr. Nutting: None, Sir.

Mr. Hughes: Does that mean that if we leave Egypt the soldiers will be brought home?

Mr. Nutting: That Question has already appeared on the Order Paper. It has not been asked, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman will study the answer tomorrow in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister tell us of any country in the Middle East that wants a big British base there, and will he say, if the Middle East is not prepared to take a base, whether it would not be better in the Middle West?

Mr. Nutting: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have already certain treaty rights with Iraq and with Jordan, under which British Forces are stationed on their territories. I take it from the fact that we continue to exercise those Treaty rights that those Forces are welcome as protection to those countries.

N.A.T.O. (SPAIN)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in the interests of democracy, he will take an early opportunity of indicating the conditions under which Her Majesty's Government would be willing to consider the incorporation of Spain in the defence of Western Europe.

Mr. Nutting: Her Majesty's Government have no steps in mind for incorporating Spain in the defence of Western Europe. Any proposal for Spanish membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation would be a matter requiring consultation with our partners in that organisation.

Mr. Fletcher: Has not the Minister any positive proposals for encouraging democratic forces who are anxious to see a different regime in Spain?

Mr. Nutting: It is not for Her Majesty's Government, and I hope it never will be a matter for Her Majesty's Government, to interfere in the internal affairs of other States.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Can the Minister give an assurance to the House that before there is any change in our policy as regards bringing Spain into Western defence he will fully consult the House before any action is taken?

Mr. Nutting: I have said that any proposal for bringing Spain into Western defence or into the North Atlantic Treaty


Organisation will be a matter for consultation with our partners in that organisation.

FORMOSA (NAVAL PROTECTION)

Mr. Follick: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, seeing that the United States Government have withdrawn their Seventh Fleet from the Formosan channel, if he will propose to the Security Council of the United Nations the replacement of this American Fleet by a combined United Nations fleet made up of the nations who are now fighting in Korea, as a protection against the further extension of the war in that area.

Mr. Nutting: No, Sir.

Mr. Follick: Would it not be better that in all operations in which the United Nations are concerned it should be for the United Nations Command to take the decision and not for any particular nation, whichever nation that might be?

Mr. Nutting: I hardly think that we could expect it to smile on the United Nations if they were to be asked to send a fleet to protect the mainland of a country which the United Nations themselves have declared to be an aggressor against them?

Mr. Follick: Did we ask America to send a fleet at that time?

Mr. Younger: Will the hon. Gentleman make it quite clear that the Formosan operation is not one in which—to use the phrase of my hon. Friend—the United Nations are concerned?

Mr. Nutting: That matter was very fully debated last week, and I have nothing to add to the statements which were made on that occasion; but it is true that the United States declaration by President Truman for the neutralisation of Formosa was a unilateral act by the United States, equally as the deneutralisation policy lately announced by President Eisenhower was a unilateral act.

Mr. Younger: May I press the hon. Gentleman a little further as it is a simple answer that I am hoping to get. It is the case, is it not, that the Formosan operation is not one with which the United Nations are concerned?

Mr. Nutting: As such, the United Nations are not concerned at this moment with the protection of Formosa.

AUSTRIAN TREATY (DISCUSSIONS)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to make a statement on the meeting of the Foreign Ministers' deputies which opened on 6th February; and what progress has been made in regard to the Austrian Treaty.

Mr. Nutting: The Foreign Ministers' deputies for the Austrian Treaty met in London on 6th and 9th February. The three Western Powers were ready to discuss any and all matters relevant to the speedy conclusion of an Austrian Treaty. The Soviet representative however declared that, before any discussions whatsoever could take place, the Western Powers must withdraw the draft Abbreviated Treaty which they had submitted to the Soviet Government in March, 1952. The Western deputies offered to leave the Abbreviated Treaty on one side, so long as constructive progress was made on any other basis. When this proposal was refused, they offered to withdraw the abbreviated draft, if it proved possible to conclude a treaty on any other basis, and proposed that the discussions should begin by an examination of the text of the long draft treaty. The Soviet deputy, however, continued to insist upon the unconditional withdrawal of the abbreviated draft. Since therefore it was clearly impossible to make any progress, it was agreed to adjourn for two or three weeks, to enable the deputies to report back to their Governments.

Mr. Davies: In view of the improbability of Russia agreeing to the Abbreviated Treaty, might I ask the Joint Under-Secretary what we would lose by withdrawing it at this stage? Will he confirm that the policy of Her Majesty's Government is still to reach the conclusion of an Austrian Treaty as soon as possible so that the occupying forces can be withdrawn?

Mr. Nutting: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the draft Abbreviated Treaty was put forward in order to try to break the deadlock. It was put forward as a basis


—not as an exclusive basis—for discussion and I do not think it is unreasonable to expect the Soviet Deputy to accept that we should withdraw our treaty only on condition that a treaty can be concluded on any other basis.

Mr. Davies: As it is quite clear that by insisting on this Abbreviated Treaty remaining available for discussion we are preventing further discussions taking place, would it not be better to withdraw it and then, if the Soviet Union do not reach agreement on the Austrian Treaty, it would be obvious that the blame was on them?

Mr. Nutting: It is pretty obvious that the blame is on the Soviet Government for having refused to co-operate in every effort that we and our two Western Allies have made to get agreement upon the long draft Treaty. It was because of that we brought forward the short draft version.

MINISTRY OF FOOD

Meat Rationing

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Minister of Food to make a statement on the Government's future policy for meat rationing; and if he will indicate the probable level of the ration during the spring.

The Minister of Food (Major Lloyd George): As my hon. Friend knows, our ultimate aim is to abolish meat rationing. This aim cannot be realised until it can be seen for some time ahead that there will be sufficient meat available to meet reasonable demand. In the meantime, I shall keep the ration as stable as possible at the highest prudent level. While I prefer not to forecast future ration levels, I can say that I hope to maintain a ration of at least 1s. 9d. during the spring and early summer.

Sir I. Fraser: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend also have in mind that, even though there is some risk in the policy of allowing the law of supply and demand to operate, in the end it is the quickest way to get more supplies at competitive prices?

Major Lloyd George: As long as the supply position remains as at present we have to be fairly prudent, particularly about future prospects.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Could the Minister explain why it is that in the meantime he has increased butchers' profits by £1 a week? Can it be that there are signs of malnutrition among this section of the community?

Bacon and Ham

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Minister of Food the total quantity of bacon and ham distributed last year, compared with 1950 and 1951.

Major Lloyd George: The figures are 495,000 tons compared with 451,000 tons in 1950 and 414,000 tons in 1951.

Mr. Fernyhough: In view of the fact that the figures which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has given are comparable with those of 1952, does he not agree that the people of this country are paying exorbitant prices for the bacon which they receive by comparison with those which they paid in 1950 and 1951?

Major Lloyd George: The fact is that they do not seem to object. They are eating more of it.

Eggs (Marketing)

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Food whether he will now make a statement on the future functioning of the packing stations, the prices expected to be paid to poultry farmers, and the resultant cost to the consumer.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the increasing confusion as to the proposed method of marketing eggs when control is lifted; and if he will now make a statement giving the details of his proposed arrangements to clarify this situation.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Minister of Food what steps he proposes to take to ensure the orderly marketing of eggs immediately after the de-control arrangements come into operation.

Major Lloyd George: The detailed arrangements for marketing eggs in the interim period following removal of allocation and price control this spring are nearing completion and a statement will be made shortly.

Miss Burton: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the President of the National Farmers' Union has described the Government's proposals as
the gamble for a free market in the hope of getting a little more on a short term, with the consumer taking the rap "?
Is he further aware that that is a verbatim statement from the "Daily Telegraph" of 28th January, which is not a Labour organ? When does he propose to protect the ordinary consumer?

Major Lloyd George: I think the hon. Lady had better wait to see the results of the discussions which we are now having.

Mr. Thomson: Can the Minister give any assurance that, under the schemes which he is planning, he will be able to ensure a priority for eggs for nursing mothers and children?

Major Lloyd George: In my view of this matter, that is a reason why we decontrolled, for that is the best way to get the eggs to every section of the community.

Miss Burton: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell the House which sections of the community approve of this scheme, as the farmers, the consumers and the shop keepers do not?

Major Lloyd George: I cannot accept that. I am quite satisfied that we should await our experience and that consumers should have a chance to see what happens.

Chemicals and Synthetic Substitutes

Mr. Wade: asked the Minister of Food what investigations of a general nature he is undertaking into the use of chemicals and synthetic substitutes in the production of food; and when he will be in a position to publish the results.

Major Lloyd George: My Department does not itself undertake investigations of this nature. Its work in this field is carried out through continual consultation with the Health Departments and the Medical Research Council and by close co-operation with the industrial research associations and other technical bodies concerned.

Mr. Wade: Does the Minister agree that in recent years there has been an alarming increase in the use of chemicals in the production and processing of food?

Does he agree that there has been no adequate inquiry into either the short-term or the long-term effect on the health of the nation?

Major Lloyd George: I do not think I can accept the hon. Gentleman's description of "an alarming increase." Chemicals need not necessarily be a cause for alarm, because they have been used for many years in foodstuffs. Very careful investigation indeed is going on into very important aspects of this matter, as subsequent Questions will show.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman telling us that the medical advice which he has received is that it is better to put chemicals into food than to leave the natural vitamins in the food? Is he prepared to give an assurance that he has had the advice from the Medical Research Council that he ought to take more of the vitamins out of the food and put in more chemicals?

Major Lloyd George: I do not know from where the right hon. Gentleman got that idea. I have never said anything of the sort. I simply said it was not necessarily a matter for alarm that there were chemicals in food. Indeed, many of the natural vitamins to which the right hon. Gentleman referred are themselves chemicals.

Flour Improvers (Investigations)

Mr. Wade: asked the Minister of Food to state what progress has been made in the investigations into the existing methods of treatment of flour; and whether he will give an assurance that the process of agenisation will be abandoned.

Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: asked the Minister of Food to take steps to counteract the harmful effects produced by the use of agene in the manufacture of flour and bread.

Major Lloyd George: These complex and important investigations into possible alternatives to agene as a flour improver are requiring considerably more time than was originally thought necessary. They are being pursued with all possible speed but it would be premature to take any action until they are completed.

Mr. Wade: Does the Minister agree that on 31st March, 1952, referring to the Report of the Scientific Committee, he said;
in view of its deleterious effect when fed in large quantities to certain animals it was felt that the use of agene should be discontinued." —[OFFICIAL REPORT. 31st March, 1952; Vol. 498, c. 1162.]
Is it not time that it should be discontinued?

Major Lloyd George: My first answer to a Question on this matter was to the effect that my information was that it would be at least a year before the Committee investigating this matter could possibly reach a conclusion, first of all, as to whether agene was harmful, and, secondly, what possible substitute could be used in its place. Since the investigations have started, one or two possible alternatives have been presented, but it is obvious that very careful research must be undertaken before either can be accepted.

Mr. Nicholson: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it has been accepted that agene is a contributory factor to hysteria in dogs?

Major Lloyd George: That is one of the things which the Committee are investigating. I would point out, however, that agene has been used in bread in this country for over 30 years.

Irish Fruits and Sweets (Banned Imports)

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: asked the Minister of Food to rescind the ban on the import of parcels containing canned fruit, dried fruit and sweets from Ireland.

Major Lloyd George: The Parliamentary Secretary has written to my hon. Friend explaining why we cannot rescind the ban at present.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: But the reasons are entirely unconvincing. Would not my right hon. and gallant Friend agree that the housewife can be relied upon not to buy these fruits if they are too expensive? If they are sufficiently cheap, should she not have an opportunity of buying them?

Major Lloyd George: I have nothing whatever to add to the answer which my hon. Friend gave, except to repeat what

he said in the second paragraph—that it is almost impossible to have them without serious abuse.

Sir Edward Keeling: Is this ban based on restrictions imposed by the Government of Ireland, and, if so, why cannot the Government of Ireland be left to enforce them at its own ports and post offices?

Major Lloyd George: I will very gladly talk this matter over with my hon. Friend, because it is a very complicated matter not in the least suitable to be dealt with by Question and answer.

Food Prices

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of numerous increases in cost of foodstuffs since December, 1951, details of which are given in a poster, a copy of which has been sent him; and haw far the items mentioned have been taken into consideration in compiling the cost-of-living index figure.

Major Lloyd George: I cannot accept many of the figures quoted in the poster. I am satisfied that the food section of the Interim Index of Retail Prices provides an accurate measure of the general level of food prices

Mr. Hynd: Would the Minister, in his own interests, indicate to this side of the House which are the figures on this poster which he does not accept, because we are anxious to use it as anti-Government propaganda?

Major Lloyd George: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman had better be very careful, because what has happened is that they have taken the prices of certain commodities at their highest point. As an example, if the hon. Gentleman wants one, he will find that the figure in the poster for baked beans shows that the price is up by 50 per cent. In fact, the prices are down in some cases by 5 per cent. and the maximum increase is 14 per cent.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that the Henry Smith organisation, which issued this circular, has had the support of the Catering Association and of hoteliers? Is he further aware that these figures have been taken from reputable trade journals of the various catering


trade employers? Is it not a fact that these figures are true and that they show the actual increase in the cost of living in these articles?

Major Lloyd George: No. I do not accept that at all. Perhaps I may take a few examples. Whereas a figure of a 50 per cent. increase is shown for baked beans, in general the figure for baked beans is actually down by 5 per cent. and there is a maximum increase of 14 per cent. That presents a totally different picture.

Mr. Lewis: indicated dissent.

Major Lloyd George: It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. We have as much information at our disposal as he has at his disposal. What has happened here is that they have taken the highest price—which we can always obtain for any commodity—as the normal price, when it is not.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that, for the year ended December, 1952, butter beans have increased in price by 50 per cent., haricot beans by 45 per cent., blancmange powders by 33 per cent., cake and pudding mixtures by 8 per cent., coffee by 20 per cent., plain flour by 56 per cent., self-raising flour by 53 per cent., canned meats by 30.57 per cent. and tea by 33 per cent.; and whether he will therefore introduce price control on these commodities, and thus enable these articles to be purchased by those in the lower income groups.

Major Lloyd George: I cannot accept the figures quoted by the hon. Member. The only proper measure of the general increase in food prices is the food section of the Interim Index of Retail Prices, which rose by 9 per cent. between January and December, 1952. I do not propose to reintroduce price control on those foods from which it has been lifted.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that these figures have been taken from the publication to which my hon. Friend has referred? Is he further aware of the fact that if in fact the catering employers have misled the public by issuing the poster, it is about time hotels cut their prices and brought them down instead of up, and that that is the real reason for these percentages?

Major Lloyd George: The hon. Member will appreciate that that is another

question. All I am prepared to say on the figures I have taken from that poster is that the exaggeration varies from two-thirds to one-half.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that, during the year ended December, 1952, bacon, whole sides, increased in price by 63 per cent., streaky bacon by 63 per cent., butter by 20 per cent., rationed cheese by 86 per cent., imported cheese by 26 per cent., bread by 25 per cent., cooking fat by 12½ per cent., gammons and hams by 92 per cent., lard by 12½ per cent., fresh meat by 21 per cent., fresh milk by 19 per cent., pork sausages by 21 per cent., beef sausages by 21½ per cent. and sugar by 11 per cent.; what were the reasons for these increases; and what action his Department is taking to bring down the price of these commodities.

Major Lloyd George: Information is not available about imported cheeses, but the price increases for the other foods quoted by the hon. Member are approximately correct for the year ending 30th November. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the Budget statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As to the third part of the Question, I would draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that the cost of living and the overall cost of food has remained practically stable since June. 1952—a welcome change from the increases since 1948 during the life of the Last Administration.

Mr. Lewis: Having at last got from the Minister an assurance that the figures quoted are correct, may I ask if he can explain why, as he accepts those figures, there is a variation of between 11 per cent. and some 86 per cent. on the major basic foodstuffs that the people of this country have to use? How can he come forward with a ridiculous figure of 6 per cent. when he accepts figures between 11 per cent. and 86 per cent.? Will he explain that?

Major Lloyd George: The hon. Member should know by now that the only possible method of judging whether the cost of living has changed is the Retail Index of Prices system inaugurated by hon. Members opposite. When it suits them to use it they do so, and when it does not suit them they ignore it. The fact is that the position has remained steady since June.

Sir W. Smithers: Is not the real answer —[HON. MEMBERS: "Tory Government."] —to Questions Nos. 27 and 28 to stop bulk purchase abroad, to stop State trading at home and to close the Ministry of Food?

Mr. Beswick: On a point of order. In controverting certain statements which have been made, the Minister quoted from this document and said that baked beans were stated to have risen by 50 per cent. In point of fact, in this document the rise is not one of 50 per cent., but one of 10 per cent. Is it in order for the right hon. and gallant Member to give very misleading quotations?

Mr. Speaker: There is no point of order in that the hon. Member must know that perfectly well. It is purely a question of fact.

Major Lloyd George: On that point, if I may do so, I would draw the attention of the hon. Member to the item, "Beans, baked, 50 per cent." That is stated there, and I cannot accept the figures quoted by the hon. Member.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. I gave way to the Minister because I thought he wanted to reply, but I think he was proceeding to answer the next Question. I beg to give notice that in view of the complete mix-up on the part of the Minister in replying to the last two Questions, I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: I have frequently drawn the attention of hon. Members to the undesirable practice of introducing into a notice of Motion imputations of any


The following table shows the controlled prices of the commodities mentioned at 31st December 1951, and 31st January, 1953:


Commodity
Unit
Retail Price



31st December, 1951 
31st January, 1953


National Bread
…
3½ lb.
1s. 0d.
1s. 3d.


Flour (Self Raising)
…
3 lb.
1s. 2½d.
1s. 6¼d.


Liquid Milk (full price) 
…
pint
6d.
6½d.


Eggs
…
each
3d. to 5d.
3d. to 5d.


Potatoes (in England and Wales) 
…
7 lb.
1s. 0½d. to 1s. 2½d.
1s. 1½d. to 1s. 4d.


Butter 
…
lb.
2s. 6d.
3s. 0d.


Margarine
…
lb.
1s. 2d.
1s. 4d.


Sugar 
…
lb.
6d.
7d.


Cheese 
…
lb.
2s. 0d.
2s. 2d.


Bacon (average excluding gammon) 
…
lb.
3s. 5d.
3s. 10d.


Lard and Cooking Fat 
…
lb.
1s. 4d.
1s. 6d.


Carcase Meat (average) 
…
lb.
1s. 8d.
2s. 0d.


Tea (main types) 
…
lb.
3s. 4d.—4s. 6d.
3s. 4d.—5s. (a)


Coffee (main types) 
…
lb.
4s. 2d.—5s. 11d.
5s. 0d.—7s. (a)


(a) Prices not controlled.



character, or words of argument or debate. I think hon. Members will be well advised to stick to the well known formula—" Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply."

Mr. Lewis: In view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, may I withdraw what I said and give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory difference between the figures of the Minister and mine, I shall raise the matter again?

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Food what were the standard prices in 1951 and at the latest known date of bread, milk, eggs, potatoes, flour, butter, margarine, sugar, cheese, bacon, cooking fat, beef, mutton, coffee and tea; and what is the total increase, per week, in the cost of these articles.

Major Lloyd George: As the reply to the first part of the Question involves a large number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The total increase in cost depends on the quantities in which all these items enter into the expenditure of the average household. The food section of the Interim Index of Retail Prices is the only reliable guide, and it rose in this period by 9.3 per cent.

Mr. Freeman: Can the Minister say the total increase per week of these foods for the average family?

Major Lloyd George: It depends on the different households, and the only reliable test is the over-all index.
Followine is the information:

Coronation (Bonus)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the Coronation bonus of 1 lb. of sugar and ¼ lb. of margarine is generally considered inadequate for the occasion; and if he will consider increasing the amounts, and giving a bonus of other foods in addition.

Mr. Shurmer: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the Coronation bonus of I lb. of sugar and ¼ lb. of margarine is quite inadequate for such an occasion; and if he will reconsider his decision and increase the amount, and also add a bonus of other foods in addition.

Major Lloyd George: No, Sir.

Mr. Dodds: Is the Minister aware that this miserable bonus has made housewives very angry and has even galvanized prominent members of the Housewives' League to say some unkind things about him? In view of the blistering remarks by countless numbers of women, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman reconsider the ox roasting ceremonies and substitute the more appropriate ceremony of roasting the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary?

Major Lloyd George: As I would have to issue the licence, it is very unlikely that that would happen. I do not agree with the hon. Member at all. If he will take the trouble to read the full statement on the question of the bonus of sugar and cooking fat, which I may say has not been improved upon by the previous Administration in any bonus whatever, he will see that what he forgets and, I assume, some of his hon. Friends forget, is that for street parties during that period people will be allowed the same rations as catering establishments and that includes the whole range of rationed commodities.

Mr. Shurmer: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that although he is giving the concession to street parties many thousands of people will not be taking part in street parties. Is he aware that this ¼ lb. of margarine and 1 lb. of sugar has become a complete joke up and down the country?

Major Lloyd George: It depends, of course, on what side the hon. Member happens to be as to whether it is a good

joke or not. Apart altogether from the question of street parties, the position of the housewife today is so much better as she is better able to entertain. She gets her 1 lb. of sugar, extra margarine and cooked ham in plentiful supply—[An HON. MEMBER: "If she can buy it."]— the better ration of meat, more bacon, and I do not have to give a bonus on tea or sweets this year.

Mrs. Mann: asked the Minister of Food what food bonuses will be available to housewives during the Coronation period.

Major Lloyd George: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made to the House on this subject on 27th January.

Mrs. Mann: May I add to that statement regarding the availability of food which will be readily available to all in this country, that I understand these concessions consist mainly of toffee apples, lollipops and popcorn?

Major Lloyd George: That is a very characteristic mis-statement by the hon. Lady. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] She knows perfectly well that those are sidelines, but the real thing is the amount of basic foods which are available, and unrationed foods are available in bigger supplies than they have been for a very long time.

Mrs. Mann: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not think that the distribution of a ¼ lb. of margarine as a Coronation feast to the people of Britain is its own reflection on the operations of the Ministry of Food in Britain?

Major Lloyd George: It is not so very long since the hon. Lady, sitting on these benches, thought a ¼ lb. of margarine and 1 lb. of sugar invaluable.

Mr. H. Morrison: Why does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman wish to accuse my hon. Friend of being "characteristically inaccurate" and propagandist? Is it not well known that when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman answers Parliamentary Questions, he is uniformly acting as a propagandist, and that the propaganda comes in front of facts. If it is a matter of the effectiveness of propagandists, I would back my hon. Friend against the Minister.

Major Lloyd George: I think the right hon. Gentleman had better spare a little time to go through the Order Paper and then he will come to the conclusion from where the propaganda was first coming. Most of the Questions I get from that side of the House are pure propaganda. The hon. Lady was trying to make out that the only contribution to a Coronation feast was lollipops, toffee apples and so on, which is quite untrue.

Margarine Stocks

Mr. Bence: asked the Minister of Food what increase has taken place in the stocks of margarine since 1st December, 1952.

Major Lloyd George: It would be contrary to practice to diselose stock figures.

Mr. Bence: Is the Minister aware that there is a great deal of indignation among housewives, particularly in Scotland, at the fact that, although he will not reveal his stocks of margarine, it is presumed there is an increase as he is giving them a bonus for the Coronation; that it would have been far better to have given it for Christmas, when people are at home, or —in Scotland—for the New Year, when people have their own celebrations there?

Mr. Lewis: Without revealing the stocks of margarine, can the Minister say whether there is a considerable non-take-up of rations?

Ox Roasting (Coronation)

Mrs. Mann: asked the Minister of Food where applications can he made for an ox to roast at the Coronation; from whom such applications will be received; and how many will be granted.

Major Lloyd George: Any local authority, or any other responsible body which has made a custom of ox roasting at Coronations will be permitted to obtain an ox for this purpose during Coronation week provided the cooked meat is given away free to those at the festivity. Organisers of such festivities should consult their local food office as licences will be necessary whether the ox is obtained by gift or purchase.

Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that his reply. being factual, cannot he in any way stated to be characteristic of his usual replies.

and could I ask him where local authorities can get an ox? Is he aware that local authorities have informed me that they have not got an ox, that they have not even got a mutton chop, and if it is the case that certain local authorities have got an ox is that not rather unfair to all the other local authorities who have not got one?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Major Lloyd George: If I were to answer half of what the hon. Lady has asked, I should require to have a great deal of notice.

Lady Tweedsmuir: What will happen if every city and large borough applies to roast an ox?

Major Lloyd George: I said "Any local authority, or any other responsible body," and I have no doubt at all that we shall be able to meet the demand.

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Food what applications he has up to the present received from local authorities to roast an ox whole, in celebration of the Coronation.

Major Lloyd George: So far about 50 applications or inquiries.

Mr. Freeman: Is this ceremony to be performed and the animal sacrificed in honour of Her Majesty the Queen? If so, is it the Minister's intention to sweep away all controls in this matter and allow this animal to be battered to death with a pole axe, as in the old-fashioned way, and is it intended to allow children to see this exhibition and the steps leading up to it? Is it the intention to throw slaughterhouses open and allow children to be taken on conducted tours of inspection on the occasion of this disgusting exhibition?

Major Lloyd George: The hon. Member has some very queer ideas about things in this country. These oxen will be slaughtered in the ordinary way in which thousands of animals are slaughtered every week, and there is no question of exhibitions such as the hon. Member suggests.

Mr. Mitchison: How many of these inquiries and applications have resulted in the delivery of an ox, and from where?

Mr. Freeman: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Coffee (Prices)

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Minister of Food what prices his Department has been paying for coffee; and what are the prices now ruling in the world markets.

Major Lloyd George: It would not be in the public interest to disclose the prices paid under contract to growers in East Africa and elsewhere. No coffee has been bought by my Department in the open market since May, 1952, when between £388 and £405 a ton was paid for Brazilian. Prices for similar coffees today range between £412 and £424 a ton.

Mr. Jeger: Does that not reveal the fact that bulk buying and long-term purchase contracts conducted by the Ministry were much better business for the nation than the present freedom of the industry from control?

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that the price of coffee is being again increased since 26th January following on de-control; and whether he will take action to protect consumers.

Major Lloyd George: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. P. Wells) on 11th December, 1952. I would add that I have heard of the increase in the price of only one brand of coffee on or since 20th January.

Mr. Jeger: The reply to which the Minister refers me says that there was no increase whereas my Question specifically states the fact that there has been an increase since that date. Is the Minister aware that I hold in my hand two invoices, one dated 29th January and one 22nd January, showing that an increase of 5d. a pound has occurred on the date I mentioned? Is the Minister quite unaware of what is happening in the food world?

Major Lloyd George: That is a little unfair. I never said that there had been no increase. If the hon. Member will look at the answer to which my reply referred him, he will see that I did not say there had been no increase, and I did not say so either in the reply I have just given the hon. Member. I know there has been one increase in one brand

since 29th January. If, as the hon. Member says, the increase is 5d.—it might have been even 10d.—that amounts to half a farthing per cup.

Eggs and Bacon (Conditional Sales)

Mrs. Mann: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that some shopkeepers are now selling eggs off the ration and bacon with eggs as a condition of sale; and how many cases in each category have come to his notice.

Major Lloyd George: A few sales of eggs outside the allocation scheme have recently been reported, but no conditional sales of eggs and bacon. If the hon. Member can let me have particulars I shall be glad to look into them.

Bread (Price)

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Food whether he will make a statement concerning the proposed increase in the price of bread.

Major Lloyd George: I have decided that I cannot accept the bakers' application for an increase of ¼d. on the price of the 14 oz. loaf.

Miss Burton: Does the Minister's reply mean that the country can take assurance that the opinion of an expert that the price of the National loaf would rise from 7½d. to 10½d. in the autumn is quite unfounded?

Major Lloyd George: I am dealing only with the hon. Lady's Question, which concerns the 14 oz. loaf. The application was based on increased costs and the shortage of farthings. Neither of those two contentions, in the opinion of my advisers, justified a rise.

Sweets (De-rationing)

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister of Food what increased supplies of sugar he is giving to the manufacturers in order that, following the end of rationing, there will be adequate supplies of sweets.

Major Lloyd George: About 9,000 tons, the quantity which was saved from last year's manufacturing allocations as a whole.

Mr. Chapman: Can the Minister give to the trade any assurance that there will be increased supplies of sugar if the shops


run out of sweets? Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman given that assurance, and if so, from where has he got the dollars?

Major Lloyd George: The Question I have answered is the one on the Order Paper. The 9,000 tons was a saving from their allocation last year—a once-for-all issue, which was deliberately made to meet the initial shock of de-rationing. and which I am perfectly certain will be more than ample.

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister of Food what steps he took before he ended the price control and rationing of sweets to ensure that there would be adequate supplies of at least some types of sweets at prices no higher than those ruling before de-rationing; and what assurances he received from the trade in this respect.

Major Lloyd George: No formal assurances about prices were sought, but I am satisfied that competition will tend to keep prices down.

Mr. Chapman: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman mean to tell the House that when he came to de-ration sweets he never even asked the retailers or the producers for an assurance that the children of this country would get sweets at the same sort of price? Did he really throw all caution to the winds when he de-rationed sweets?

Major Lloyd George: I have much more confidence in this trade than the hon. Gentleman. I am certain, from what I know of the trade and the competition in it, that there is nothing to fear at all.

Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the de-rationing of sweets has proceeded very smoothly and has belied all the wretched prognostications of hon. Gentlemen opposite?

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS (SUBJECTS OF INQUIRIES)

Mr. Dudley Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to draw your attention to Question No. 97, and to the three Questions put yesterday by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), Question Nos. 55, 80 and 81; the first being addressed to the Secretary of State for War, the second to the

Minister of Civil Aviation and the third to the Under-Secretary of State for Air. All those Questions relate to the distressing accident to the York aircraft belonging to Skyways, Limited.
The point I wish to put to you, Sir, is that this accident is the subject of an inquiry which is being set up by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. Is it in order for Questions such as these to be accepted by the Table Office, when they can do nothing else but prejudice the result of the inquiry, until the inquiry has been completed?

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) may be confusing matters which are subject to judicial inquiry and those which are the subject matter of administrative inquiry. A Question on a matter which is the subject of an administrative inquiry is in order, or at least is not forbidden by the rules of order. But I should anticipate that any such Question would receive the reply, "As the matter is now being inquired into, I cannot say anything at the moment."

Mr. Beswick: Further to that point of order. With respect, I do not think that is quite the full position. As a matter of fact, all these Questions relate, not to the particular York aircraft which unfortunately is lost, but to the York aircraft as a type. I have only sought—I hope not unsuccessfully—to have the operation of this type of aircraft over the Atlantic suspended until such time as an inquiry is completed. My inquiries are all directed to getting information about the type of aircraft and not about the particular accident.

Mr. Speaker: In any case, I gave an answer to the question I was asked. I have not studied the Questions to which the hon. Member refers.

SHIPPING, FAR EAST (PROTECTION)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

MR. DONNELLY: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, what instructions have been sent by Her Majesty's Government to Commanders of the Royal Naval units in the Far East, in view of the withdrawal of the 7th United States Fleet from Formosa.

Mr. Donnelly: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I have your help and guidance? My right hon. Friend the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) yesterday submitted a Private Notice Question to you relating to the seizing of British ships by General Chiang Kai-shek's forces, based on a statement by General Bradley to the United States Congress. I understand that my hon. Friend's Question was not accepted by the Table, or by you—one or the other— and that this matter is being held over.
It is a very dangerous situation. At the moment a number of British ships are going about their lawful occasions on the high seas and there is considerable danger involved so far as our shipping is concerned. One of the advantages I have found since I have been a Member of this House is the elasticity of its rules of procedure. I have Question No. 90 on the Order Paper addressed to the First Lord of the Admiralty who, if he was prepared to answer it could, without holding up the business of the House, give an assurance protecting British shipping and letting people know where they stand.

Mr. Speaker: The Private Notice Question submitted to me related, so I am informed, to an incident which took place on 18th September last, and I did not think therefore that it could be of sufficient urgency to justify it being asked as a Private Notice Question. Regarding the general matter of Question No. 90, I have frequently stated that the rule is for a Minister to ask me for leave to answer a Question which is not reached. If that course is not taken an hon. Member must, like many other hon. Members when there are 101 Questions on the Order Paper, wait for his written reply.

Mr. Donnelly: Further to that point of order. The First Lord of the Admiralty is present and the thing could be settled in a minute—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It could not be so settled.

EAST COAST FLOOD DISASTER

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I will, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, make a further statement about the flooded areas on the East Coast.
Good progress continues to be made in the work of repairing the breaches and it is hoped that more than two-thirds of the breaches will be closed to high tide level before the next high tides; the remainder are for the most part in areas where any flooding which may occur will not be likely to endanger the public. Since my last statement five more deaths have become known to the police, so that the total number of deaths is now 288. About 50 persons are still reported to be missing. There are still nearly 30,000 persons living away from their homes.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Food, in order to help housewives to replace stocks of rationed food which they have lost in the floods, has authorised the food offices concerned to give an additional temporary ration card which will enable them to obtain two weeks' extra supply of rationed food. Arrangements are also being made, through local food offices, for retailers to rebuild their stocks of rationed foods and to obtain additional replacement supplies of the scarcer unrationed foods such as canned milk and dried fruit.
In my statement on 9th February I undertook to give information about arrangements for collecting and distributing furniture, offers of which have been coming in generously from the public. From now on, any person wishing to offer furniture should make the offer in writing in the first place to the nearest local office of the W.V.S., and no furniture should be despatched until arrangements have been notified to the donor by the W.V.S., who have undertaken to be responsible for the distribution of the furniture, in co-operation with the local authorities, as needs are ascertained. The W.V.S. will arrange for the transport of suitable furniture to the appropriate centre, if necessary visiting the person making the offer. The Government will bear the cost of transport of furniture accepted under these arrangements.
The Government hope that local authorities, voluntary organisations and others will be prepared to co-operate, if approached by the W.V.S., in providing local centres in which furniture can be temporarily stored pending transport to the main depots.
The most useful gifts are likely to be floor coverings, materials for curtains and chair covers, household utensils, heating stoves, household linen and small—I would emphasise small—tables, chairs, chests and cupboards.
Victims of the flood who are in need of furniture should make application to the local authority of the area in which they normally live. They should give their names and both their usual and their present addresses, and should state the extent of the damage which they have suffered and their requirements. The local authority will, after checking the applications, pass them on to the W.V.S., who will get into touch with the applicants and will try to meet their needs out of the gifts that have been made.
I am now in a position to announce the arrangements which have been made to give warning to the public if it is thought that there is likely to be danger from further floods. The essential features of the scheme are as follows;

(1) Warnings will be localised as far as possible.
(2) The river boards will be responsible for advising the police if there is, in their opinion, any threat of danger.
(3) The police will be responsible for giving warnings to the public and to local authorities and public utility undertakings. The river boards will be responsible for warning people at work on the repair of the sea defences and for securing their safety in the event of further inundation.

The river boards will receive from the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries by teleprinter reports from the Meteorological Office and also data of high and low tides obtained from Leith, the Tyne, the Tees, Grimsby and Harwich or Felixstowe.
The police in the coastal areas have been asked to make surveys, in consultation with the officers of the river boards, in order to find out which are the probable danger areas. They have also been

asked to nominate senior officers to attend at the headquarters of the river boards during the hours of high tides in the emergency period in order to initiate police action if required without delay. They are taking steps to inform the public in the danger areas of the times of high tides and of the local warning arrangements.
The precise arrangements will depend on the circumstances of the areas concerned. They will include, as appropriate:

(i) the posting of police or civilian watchmen at threatened points;

(ii) the patrolling of villages and towns with loudspeaker cars;
(iii) the use of suitable warning devices, e.g., maroons;
(iv) warnings to isolated houses and farms;
(v) warnings to local authorities;
(vi) warnings to public utility and major industrial installations;
(vii) stand-by warnings to owners of small craft and any owners of vehicles who may be able to assist in evacuation,and
(viii) the surveying of practical escape routes.

Chief constables are being asked to report to the Home Office on the nature of their plans.
All these arrangements will be in operation from this evening.
In addition to these local arrangements, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries has arranged with the B.B.C. for the broadcasting of information as follows:—

(1) The Ministry will be informed by a river board of the issue of any local warning and will, where necessary, inform the B.B.C. with a request to broadcast the warning.
(2) At hourly intervals throughout the day and night the B.B.C., in the Light Programme on 1,500 metres, will broadcast details of warnings of high tides at various points on the East Coast, and of any flood warnings which had been issued.

Further details of these arrangements (which will operate from tomorrow afternoon) will be issued by the B.B.C.
So far as can be foreseen, the danger areas are likely to be few and there is little risk except during the period from three hours before to one hour after high tide. The Government have, however, thought it right for the present to err in the direction of excessive precautions and they hope that the public in the areas affected will co-operate, in particular by strict compliance with the advice of the local police. Special vigilance should be shown by the occupants of bungalows in low-lying areas and the owners of bungalows in the Canvey and Jaywick areas are particularly warned that it will not be safe for them to return before Thursday of next week at the earliest.

Mr. H. Morrison: We are much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his statement. Can he tell us whether there are any possibilities of trouble on the West Coast such as has been predicted in a certain quarter, with I know not what truth? There was some comment at the weekend on the assumption that there was delay between the meteorological warnings of the original trouble and administrative action, either locally or in Whitehall. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say anything about that?
We note that in his statement, without prejudice to the very valuable services of everybody else, there is notable reference to the work of the Women's Voluntary Services, and I think that it would be the wish of both sides of the House to pay tribute to the work of that very great organisation, the value of which I know from my war-time experience as Home Secretary and Minister of Home Security.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: With regard to the first point, I should not like that to be emphasised at the moment. I will take an early opportunity of dealing with it in detail if it is necessary. On the second question, the system that was in operation with regard to the river boards was one with a limited design. It would take rather a long and technical explanation to give its effect. I should be grateful if the House would suspend judgment on that until we have an opportunity of discussing it. I have tried—and I hope the House will forgive me for having dealt with it at length—to show that the

apprehensions expressed have, as far as possible, been met in the scheme which will come into operation today and tomorrow.
On the third point, I add with pleasure my own thanks to the Women's Voluntary Services, and I am sure that the whole House will share our gratitude.

Mr. H. A. Price: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take note of the fact that certain plant-hire firms are taking advantage of the situation to inflate their charges, one example being that of a sixinch self-running pump quoted at £23 per week last Friday compared with less than £10 per week on 23rd January? Will he have this matter dealt with promptly and firmly.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I will certainly look into that point at once.

Mr. Dodds: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in giving permission to the Erith Borough Council to requisition 15 empty houses, he has earned the gratitude of the people who are doing their best for the flood victims, on whose behalf I have been asked to say, "Thank you "?

Mr. Braine: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in respect of Canvey Island there is still some doubt whether people will be able to return or not? The local authority have expressed the hope that people will not return, but no clear-cut direction has yet been given. As there is only one line of communication with the mainland, can my right hon. and learned Friend give a much firmer direction so that disaster may not occur if there has to be a total evacuation?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I will look into it and see that his wish is complied with if possible.

Mr. Woodburn: There is a great deal of misunderstanding as to what kind of furniture will be acceptable. Obviously, it would be a waste of time to send scrap furniture, but is it necessary that the furniture should be of a very high standard, or would usable furniture which people are at present using be accepted if it were sent in?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Yes. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has used a very


good phrase: usable furniture which people would find of use at the time would be acceptable. It ought to be understood that it is furniture in good condition which will be helpful. I did not want to put anything too strong in my statement, because it would appear rather like looking a gift horse in the mouth. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for emphasising that point. I am sure that people will appreciate it.

Mr. Bullard: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether the Government are considering the possibility of help to people with small businesses, especially small farmers who are very hard hit by the floods, to enable them to start in business again? Quite apart from the Fund, are the Government considering help in that direction to enable people to get on their feet again?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Yes. Certainly we are considering that.

Mr. Edward Evans: Can the Home Secretary amplify the reply he gave to me on Monday about the financial responsibility which the Government will take, apart from the Fund mentioned by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Bullard), whose anxiety I share? I should like the Home Secretary to realise that there is a tremendous amount of anxiety among local authorities as to what their financial situation will be, and also among small people who have had material damage and who are not covered by insurance. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will amplify what he told us on Monday, and that the attitude of the Government will be sympathetic towards those small people.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I think that there are three categories envisaged in the hon. Gentleman's question. The first is the one that I have dealt with and which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland repeated. That is emergency work. The second is general local authority work. I should be glad if the local authorities would get in touch with their usual Ministry contacts as soon as they like. The third is, of course, the Lord Mayor's Fund. I understand that the Lord Mayor will be issuing a statement about the procedure he is adopting, and the matter is receiving consideration from Her Majesty's Government. I hope to announce soon a clear-cut method of

application and I hope also that it will be possible to continue de-centralisation. I am very anxious, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is, because it is tremendously important, that action should be taken quickly in this matter.

Mr. Alport: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he is aware that one of the materials which has suffered most damage in the furnishing line is linoleum, and whether he will take steps to ensure that reasonably priced linoleum is available in the coastal towns to replace that which has been lost? Is he also aware that gifts of this material would be most welcome?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: My hon. Friend will remember that I did mention floor coverings first, and suggested that supplies would be most useful gifts, but I will certainly consider what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. David Jones: Is the Home Secretary aware that I have had particulars given to me this morning about a railway-man who was evacuated from his home in Great Yarmouth on 1st February and was temporarily accommodated in two chalets at the Gorleston Holiday Camp, and who has been told by the camp manager that he will now be expected to pay the hire charge for these two chalets, in addition to the £1 a week mortgage repayment which he has to meet on his house in Great Yarmouth?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to give me particulars of any individual case—if he will either write to me or speak to me about it—I shall be very pleased to look into it.

Mr. Lewis: While appreciating the undoubted help of the Lord Mayor's Fund, may I ask the Home Secretary whether he does not agree that something should be done on the whole question of compensation? Has his attention been called to the report that the Netherlands Government are to bring back into force in their country some scheme similar to the war damage scheme? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider some such scheme being brought into existence? Secondly, has his attention been drawn to the very regrettable and disgusting—though fortunately isolated— cases of looting, and will he consider the


issue of a very severe warning to people who might be caught in disgusting actions of that kind?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Regarding the first point, I will certainly consider it, and I will consider any suggestion that the hon. Gentleman cares to make to me in detail. In reply to the second point, as I indicated a few days ago, there have been isolated cases, but I would repeat what I said last week that, on the whole, the standard of conduct and morale has been very good.

Mr. Fell: Following on the question put by an hon. Gentleman opposite about the holiday camp, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he is aware that both the holiday camps near Yarmouth immediately threw their doors wide open to evacuees without any question of what recompense there might be in any way? I am sure that in the case to which his attention has been drawn there may be a reasonable explanation, which I hope I shall hear myself very soon. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that both holiday camps, in fact, have given sterling assistance?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I said that I would look into the matter, and I am sure that the House will realise my difficulties. When statements are made about individual cases, all that I can promise is that I will do my best to inquire into them.

Mr. Follick: Would I be in order in thanking the Home Secretary for the very prompt attention he gave to the question that I raised on Monday last in regard to the Import Duty charged to Luigi Infantino?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am very glad that, in that minor but, of course, important question, we can say that all's well that ends well.

Mr. Pannell: May I ask the Home Secretary whether, in drawing up these arrangements, he will try to place them on a general compensation basis? I am speaking now of the basis of compensation, and I am asking the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he will bear in mind that people want to get this sort of compensation as of right, and that we really do not want any kind of charitable

stigma about it. Will he also give consideration to the question of how far insurance covers the damage, because I have heard of a firm suffering £300,000 worth of damage, and what we want is. one comprehensive statement dealing with the lot.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but I should like to say—and I hope the House will agree with me—that, in regard to the Lord Mayor's Fund, there is no question of anything charitable in the sense in which the hon. Gentleman referred to it. The Fund is the response of the country, by common effort, to the misfortunes of some of our fellow citizens; and I hope that no one will feel that, on these occasions when the country does respond to such an appeal, there is anything in the slightest degree derogatory about using the funds provided.

PEERS

Mr, R. T. Paget: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to peerage.
This is a very short Bill, and it will provide simply this—that no persons shall exercise the privileges or suffer the disqualifications of the peerage until such time as they have taken the oath in the House of Lords. First, I would say that this Bill has no effect whatever on the privileges of the other place. Nobody today is a peer of Parliament until he has taken the oath in the other place, and therefore this Bill affects nobody who is a peer of Parliament. It affects only those who have not become peers of Parliament.
Secondly, it does not affect the Prerogative in any way; that is to say, it does not have any effect one way or the other upon the hereditary principle, nor does it affect any of the privileges of a patent of nobility. No patent of nobility imposes the obligation to become a peer of Parliament, and this Bill affects only those who have not become peers of Parliament.
Thirdly, the only criticism which I have heard with regard to this apparently just provision is that it grants to peers an option and a privilege which they have not got now. I think that is a mistaken


view. The option to become a peer of Parliament by presenting himself there and taking the oath is an option which is granted by the existing law. It is not affected by this Bill. If we want to get away from that special privilege which comes to people for hereditary reasons, we can abolish the House of Lords. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That is a proposal which will appeal to a good many of my hon. Friends, but I think they would agree with me that it would not be an entirely suitable proposal to bring forward under the Ten Minutes Rule. This Bill does not affect that one way or the other. It merely provides that those people who do not choose to become peers of Parliament by presenting themselves and taking the oath shall not be treated as if they were lunatics or bankrupts. I, personally, hold the view, and I think a good many of my hon. Friends would hold the view, that lack of desire to become a peer of Parliament does not necessarily show either lunacy or insolvency.
To illustrate the only effect which this Bill would have, I will take the instance of the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke). He has recently vindicated the rights of private Members to hold their own opinions, one of the very few political events which was, I think, received with equal joy upon both sides of the House. So long as the electors of Dorset, South are deluded enough to elect him, it is unfair that they should be deprived of his services. I say equally that it is unfair on the electors of Bristol, South-East, so long as they are wise enough to elect their present Member, that they should be deprived of his services.
I ask the House to grant me leave to bring in this Bill because it is an ideal subject for a Bill of this sort. It removes a patent injustice of limited scope affecting comparatively few people, and it removes that injustice without imposing the slightest burden or injustice upon anybody else. I therefore ask leave to present this Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel Walter Elliot: rose —

Mr. Speaker: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman proposing to speak against the Bill?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Yes, Sir, I am I trust very much that the House will not see its way to give leave to bring in this Bill. This is an old question and a very large question, and certainly not one which should be dealt with under the 10-minute procedure. It opens up the whole question whether certain persons should have the right to choose in which House they shall sit. That is not a matter for perfunctory discussion and decision of this House, nor should even the principle be discussed in that way. After all, the other House is reinforced from time to time with figures from this House who have had long Parliamentary experience, and it may well be that such figures would for the moment prefer to remain in this House. It may be better for the advantage of both Houses that they should take their place in the other Chamber in accordance with the law as it stands at present. That a special reward should be given to those who have not taken the oath of Parliament seems altogether ridiculous and anomalous.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) made no reference to what would happen if a Member subsequently wished to take the oath and to move to another place. Is he to be given an indefinite option of choosing in which House he shall sit? I suggest that would be an intolerable position. Nor do I think it would be a good thing that those former Members of this place, such as Lord Hailsham, who have given good service in this House and who have taken the oath in the other place, should be penalised, as compared with other peers who may not have taken the trouble to take the oath.
I certainly have no desire to detain the House on the matter, but would merely say that my counsel to the House would be that this Bill should not be given the opportunity of being introduced in this way and that hon. Members on both sides of the House should vote against it.

Mr. Speaker: I was not quite satisfied from what the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said that there might not be a question, if this Bill proceeds further, of requiring the Queen's Consent at a later stage. I will look into it—that is, if it is the will of the House that the Bill should be brought in.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12.

The House divided: Ayes, 145 Noes, 238.

Division No. 85.]
AYES
14.5 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Hamilton, W. W.
Palmer, A. M. F,


Albu, A. H.
Hannan, W.
Pennell, Charles


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Hargreaves, A.
Pearson, A.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Balfour, A.
Hastings, S.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Popplewell, E


Bence, C. R.
Herbison, Miss M
Proctor, W. T


Bann, Wedgwood
Holt, A. F.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Benson, G.
Houghton, Douglas
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Blackburn, F.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rhodes, H.


Blenkinsop, A.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon G. A.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Boardman, H.
Janner, B.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bowden, H. W.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Bowen, E. R.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Brockway, A. F.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Ross, William


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Kenyon, C.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Carmichael, J.
King, Dr. H. M.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Champion, A. J.
Lambton, Viscount
Sparks, J. A.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Steele, T.


Clunie, J.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Coldrick, W.
Lindgren, G. S.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Cranborne, Viscount
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Culler, Mrs. A.
McGhee, H. G.
Swingler, S. T.


Daines, P.
McGovern, J.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
McInnes, J.
Thomas David (Aberdare)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
MoLeavy, F.
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Dodds, N. N.
MacMil'an, M. K. (Western Isles)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Donnelly, D. L.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Tilney, John


Edelman, M.
MaIlaliau, E. L. (Brigg)
Vane, W. M. F.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Wade, D. W.


Ewart. R.
Manuel, A. C.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Fernyhough, E.
Mayhew, C. P.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Fienburgh, W.
Mitchison, G. R.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Finlay, Graeme
Moody, A. S.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Follick, M.
Mulley, F. W.
Williams, David (Neath)


Forman, J. C.
OldfieId, W. H.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Aberlitlery)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Orbach, M.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Freeman, John (Watford)
Ormsby-Gore, Han. W. D.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightfide)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Yates, V. F.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)



Griffiths, David (Rather Valley)
Oswald, T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Padley, W. E.
Brigadier Prior-Palmer and


Grimond, J.
Paget, R. T.
Mr. Beswick.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)





NOES


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Digby, S. Wingfield


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Alport, C. J. M
Bullard, D. G.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Bullock, Capt. M.
Donner, P. W.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Drewe, C.


Arbuthnot, John
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Campbell, Sir David
Duthie, W. S.


Awbery, S. S.
Carr, Robert
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Baldwin, A. E
Carson, Hon E
Edwards, John (Brighouse)


Banks, Col. C
Cary, Sir Robert
Erroll, F. J.


Barber, Anthony
Chapman, W. D.
Fell, A.


Barlow, Sir John
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Fisher, Nigel


Bartley, P.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Cole, Norman
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Fort, R


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Bishop, F. P.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Fraser, Sir lan (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)


Black, C. W.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell


Boothby, R. J. G.
Crouch, R. F.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N


Bowles, F. G.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollek)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hiilhead)


Braine, B. R
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Gammans, L. D.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N,W.)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Davidson. Visoountess
Glanville, James




Godber, J. B.
Lyttelton, Rt Hon. O.
Ryder, Capt R. E. [...]


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
McAdden, S. J.
Sandys, Rt Hon D.


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
MacColl, J E.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Grenfell, Rt. Hon D R.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W (Rochdale)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Scott, R. Donald


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
McKibbin, A. J
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Harden, J. R. E
McKie, J H. (Galloway)
Short, E. W


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Maclay, Rt. Hon John
Simon, J. E. S (Middlesbrough, W.)


Harrison, Col. J. H (Eye)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Slater, J.


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Speir, R. M


Hay, John
Maitland, Comdr. J. F W. (Horncastle)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Hayman, F. H
Markham, Major S F.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Heald, Sir Lionel
Marlowe, A A. H
Stanley. Capt. Hon. Richard


Higgs, J M. C
Maude, Angus
Stevens, G. P.


Hill, Dr Charles (L[...]ton)
Medlicott, Brig. F
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Mellor, Sir John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Messer, F.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Holland-Martin, C. J
Molson, A. H. E,
Stuart, RI. Hon. James (Moray)


Holman, P.
Morgan, Dr. H. B W.
Summers, G. S.


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Mor[...]ey, R.
Sylvester, G. O.


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham,S.)
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M P.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon Florence
Mott-Radclyffe, C E.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Murray, J. D
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J P L (Hereford)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Neal, Harold (Bo!saver)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Nicholls, Harmar
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr R (Croydon, W.)


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Thornton-Kemstey, Col. C. N


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Hurd, A. R
Noble, Cmdr A. H. P
Turton, R. H


Hutchison, Lt -Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Nugent, G. R. H
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Nutting, Anthony
Viant, S. P


Hynd, J B. (Attercliffe)
Oliver, G. H
Vosper, D. F.


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super Mare)
Wakefield, Sir WaveII (St Marylebone)


Jenkins, R. H (Stechford)
Paton. J.
Ward, Hon George (Worcester)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.
Waterhouse, Capt Rt. Hon. C.


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Pelo, Brig. C. H M.
Watkinson, H A


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Payton, J W. W
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon L. W.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A
Wellwood, W


Kaberry, D.
Pitman, I J
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Keenan, W.
Porter, G.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Kerr, H. W.
Powell, J. Enoch
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Kinley, J.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Law, Rt Hon. R. K.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Profumo, J. D
Wills, G.


Legge-Bourke, Maj E. A H.
Remnant, Hon. P
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Linstead, H. N
Richards, R.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Llewellyn, D. T
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wood, Hon R.


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
York, C.


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Robson-Brown, W.



Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J C.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Low, A. R. W.
Roper, Sir Harold
Lieut.-Colonel Elliot and


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Mr. Nabarro.


Lucas, P B (Brantford)
Russell, R. S

Orders of the Day — IRON AND STEEL BILL

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 29th January.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 4. (PROVISION OF PRODUCTION FACILITIES.)

4.15 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 4, line 40, to leave out "additional."
When we were discussing Clause 3, there were many attempts on this side of the Committee, alas unsuccessful, to give the Board some additional powers and to extend somewhat the scope of their duties. This Clause does give some duties and some limited powers to the Board or to the Board and the Minister in conjunction. Subsection (1), with which we are particularly concerned at the moment, places a duty on the Board to consult from time to time the iron and steel producers and others with a view to securing the provision and use by iron and steel producers of such additional production facilities in Great Britain as may be required for the efficient, economic and adequate supply of iron and steel products.
I take it that all of us will agree that an efficient, economic and adequate supply is required. We are agreed, also, that it is the duty of the Board to review the whole productive capacity of the country for that purpose, as is provided for in Clause 3, and to promote the supply in exactly the terms which I have mentioned and which are repeated in Clause 4 from the previous Clause.
There is no doubt that the Board have a general duty to review and supervise in these matters, but for the purposes of this Clause they are at present limited to consultation merely with regard to additional production facilities. Though I agree that in Clause 31 (2) those words are widely defined and that they can cover
… the reconstruction or adaptation of, or making of additions to, existing production facilities, …
it remains a fact that the review is limited to the purpose of securing some additions, whether by way of entirely new plant or by way of additions to existing plant.
We say that there ought to be a wider purpose in the review. There is no question, of course, of providing what is already there, but the review at least ought to comprise the proper use of what is already there. It is substantially for that reason that we regard this Amendment as of some importance. Indeed, we go further and say that if we are to review merely with a view to securing additional facilities, even with the addition by the definition that I have just mentioned, then we are really looking at only one-half of the problem and looking at it from a wrong and limited point of view.
I suggest that that is very strongly borne out if one considers what will happen under the next subsection of this Clause. I am not going into that subsection in any detail, but it broadly provides that if after that consultation production facilities seem to the Board to be inadequate and they cannot obtain facilities in any other way, then the Board may report to the Minister and the Minister, under certain conditions, may take steps to provide or supplement or use properly those facilities himself. How can a decision on that sort of matter be made unless the Board keep in mind not merely the question of additional facilities but also, as part of the same question, the proper use of the facilities that are there already? I am not certain, but this may be nothing more than a question of language. It may very well be that the Minister himself, at any rate on considering the matter in the light of this Amendment, will feel that the language of the Bill puts on the Board at present an impossible task to consider what should be added without considering the proper use of what is there. That is the substantial point of this Amendment.
It is quite clear from what I said earlier and from the language of Clause 3 that the Board have to review not only the extent but also the use of existing production facilities. It would be rather absurd if the Board, in reviewing those matters and supervising the industry in that respect, were limited as is suggested by the present language. I see no difference—and I suggest that the Committee will find little if any, difference—between the wide field of the supervision and review in Clause 3 and the scope of the purpose that ought to be attributed to


the Board when making these consultations. Therefore, to improve the Bill, to give the Board the job they ought to have, and to enable them to take into consideration and to secure, so far as they can, the proper use of existing facilities, I commend this Amendment to the Committee.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I do not think there is any great difference between us on this point. However, it is a good thing that it was raised so that we can be quite clear about the intentions behind this Clause.
I understand that the purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that the Board's consultations with the industry on development shall embrace not only additions to existing plant but also modernisation, adaptations and so forth which do not necessarily involve the construction of additional plant.

Mr. Mitchison: The use and the proper use.

Mr. Sandys: The use and the proper use is the second point. The first point is that we want them to consider not only the construction of new plant but also the adaptation and modernisation of existing plant. The second is the question of the best and the most effective use of plant which exists, not necessarily involving new construction or work at all.
We are now discussing the duty of the Board to consult, not the question of the actual provision of additional plant which is covered by the duty of the Board under Clause 3 (1, a) to keep under review the productive capacity of iron and steel producers. That, we consider, is a general instruction to the Board to concern themselves with the efficient production of iron and steel.
I should like to draw the hon. and learned Member's attention to page 26 of the Bill, where he will find subsection (2) of the interpretation Clause —

Mr. Mitchison: I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman, but I should just like to thank him for mentioning this, and also to remind him that almost the first thing I did was to call the attention of the Committee to what he is now about to mention.

Mr. Sandys: If I have duplicated what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, I

ask his forgiveness, but as part of my explanation I should like to emphasise that that subsection specifically states that;
References in this Act to the provision of additional production facilities shall be construed as references to the provision of new production facilities and to the reconstruction or adaptation of, or making of additions to, existing production facilities….
I think that this interpretation meets the wish of the hon. and learned Gentleman to ensure that the consultation shall cover the adaptation or modernisation of existing plant. Clause 3 (1, a) covers the general duty to discuss with the industry the problems of the most efficient use of existing plant. That is certainly our intention.
I have consulted Parliamentary counsel on this point and I am assured that, in fact, the Bill as now drafted fully covers the two points made by the hon. and learned Gentleman. Therefore, this Amendment is really not necessary. Nevertheless, in order to make it plain, if it is desired, not only to the hon. and learned Member but also to laymen, I am willing to accept this Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. J. E. S. Simon: I beg to move, in page 4, line 42, after "supply," to insert "under competitive conditions."
Would it he convenient, Sir Charles, to discuss at the same time the Amendments in page 5, line 1, after "supply," insert "under competitive conditions." and in page 5, line 16, after "ought," insert:
for the efficient, economic and adequate supply under competitive conditions or otherwise."?
They all really relate to the same point.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Simon: I hope that I shall find my right hon. Friend in the same complacent mood as he was when replying to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison).
The purpose of this Amendment is to make sure that in the consultation of the Board with the industry in the sphere of production facilities, in the Board in turn reporting to the Minister, and in respect of the Minister's residual powers, there


should not only be considered "the efficient, economic and adequate supply of iron and steel products," but the consideration of competitive conditions. We on this side of the Committee believe in the advantages of competitive enterprise. Obviously, if workers are insufficiently organised, competition can press very hardly on them, but by and large we believe that competition is of value in that it rewards efficiency. Indeed, it demands efficiency as the price of a profit and rewards greater efficiency with greater profit.
4.30 p.m.
I am glad to think that I have my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply entirely on my side in this matter. In the Committee stage he said it far better than I could ever hope to put it here. He said:
We are considering an industry returned to free enterprise, where competition will be one of the consumer's main safeguards. We are not resting on that alone. In addition to the wider and freer competition which we firmly believe will be created as a result of this legislation, we have decided to provide some specific safeguards for consumers.
Later on he said:
What is quite clear is that we wish to restore, as fully as possible, conditions of free enterprise and free competition within the industry."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 28th January, 1953; Vol. 510, c. 1059.]
I should like to make it plain that when we use the word "competition" we mean real competition and not what the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) means by it. He said on the Second Reading, and his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) repeated it in Committee because he was so pleased with it, that there could be competition under nationalisation and there was nothing to prevent the various producing units in the nationalised industry from competing with one another. Of course there is not, any more than there is anything to prevent a couple of Chelsea pensioners from racing each other around Trafalgar Square, but it is a very unlikely thing to happen. There is no possible incentive or profit to be derived by one unit under nationalisation from competition or from being more efficient than other producing units.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: Does the hon. and learned Member understand the full implications of the Schuman Plan and the difficulty there would be for the steel interests in this country to have internal competition in face of the united front of steel interests on the Continent?

Mr. Simon: I shall not allow myself to be led off into the subject of the Schuman Plan when I am trying to persuade my right hon. Friend to accept my Amendment. Competition can obviously be limited in a number of different ways. It can be limited if there are only one or two producers in the market—I think that was the point made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park, who is not here today —because they can influence the price and make a profit. We can also have a sellers' market, which would limit effective competition, and finally we can have artificial monopolies constituted by restrictive practices.
The Parliamentary Secretary last week pointed out, and we accept it fully from him, that restrictive practices are covered by Clause 3, because it was the specific function of the Board to supervise the industry so as to ensure
the efficient, economic and adequate supply under competitive conditions of iron and steel products,
and that involved the duty of oversight of restriction practices. We had the ultimate sanction of the Monopolies Commission.
That is only part of the problem. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary recognised that when he said on 29th January in Committee that both sides saw
that there is an advantage in having competitive conditions in the industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January. 1953; Vol. 510, c. 1267.]
If that is so, and if one has to ensure that there are no artificial restrictions making artificial monopoly, it is clear that we have to see that there are sufficient producing units in the market. If it is desirable under Clause 3, where there is a general duty to keep under review the productive capacity of the industry
with a view to promoting the efficient, economic and adequate supply under competitive conditions of iron and steel products,
it must be desirable in Clause 4, where there is to be consultation with a view to
securing the provision and use by iron and steel producers of such additional production facilities,


as may be required. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General is here now. I am sure he would tell us that a change of wording in a formula in an Act of Parliament has a quite particular significance. Where one finds in Clause 3 the words
under competitive conditions
and finds they are missing from Clause 4, that has a significance quite its own.
The object of the Amendment is to ensure that part of the duty of the Iron and Steel Board in respect of development plans is to see that a condition of competition is provided, and that there are production facilities for
the efficient, economic and adequate supply.. of iron and steel products.

Mr. Austen Albu: The Minister accepted the first Amendment moved from this side of the Committee on the ground that it would make for greater clarification and would make the Clause more acceptable to the lawyers who, after all, have to interpret the Bill. I should have thought it was extremely important in a Bill of this type not to insert words whose definition is extremely doubtful, making interpretation difficult for the lawyers. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) who, on the last occasion we were in Committee, when I was unfortunately unable to be present, drew attention to the ambiguous nature of words of this sort.
I remember the industry before the war only as a customer. I was in the engineering industry, but I do not remember that one could purchase material for the engineering industry under competitive conditions, whether it was steel, nonferrous metal or whatever else it might have been. There were, it is true, one or two firms outside the trade association, but their output was so small that competitive conditions could not in any way be considered to apply to iron and steel products, such as sheet and strip. One sometimes got better service from one firm than from another, although if one were a small buyer, as I was, one frequently or generally got inferior service from the large firms. There was nothing like competition. To say that there was anything like effective competition, either as commonly understood or as a lawyer would understand it, would be an exaggeration.
Will the insertion of these words in the Bill in any way assist in creating competition conditions'? I suggest that they cannot in any way. Nor, I believe, is it the intention of the Government that that should be the case. During the next few years the pressure on the industry from consumers, from the engineering industry, will be very great indeed, and it is, therefore, necessary to have some control over the prices of final products.
There is in the Bill provision for the control of prices. It is quite likely that prices will not only be controlled, but somehow, as they have been for many years, levelled out as between one firm and another, so that there are not likely to be competitive price conditions. Nor, in an industry whose resources are so immobile, and whose plans of development have to be worked out over such a long period, could any Government, even the present one, accept the conditions of a competitive market for capital. There is, therefore, not likely to be that sort of free competitive market.
Plans are to be developed for the industry, and the Government assure us that it will be subject to the same sort of supervision, but I must admit that we have some doubts whether that supervision will be entirely in the public interest. Certainly we would like what I would call free conditions of capital supply, but anybody who knows anything about the industry, the size of the equipment required, the length of time it takes to develop it, construct it, build it, and plan the raising of the capital, knows that it cannot exist.
The industry, quite apart from its control by Steel House before the war—of which at the moment I make no criticism—was getting less and less like a competitive industry. We all know that the concentration of the industry was growing the whole time. When the Iron and Steel Corporation took over the 298 companies, it in fact took over only 80 companies directly, the remainder being all subsidiaries of the main companies. Even of those 80 companies, 20 were partly owned by other companies. Looking at the directorships and shareholdings of even the remaining companies, we find there were very close links. In fact, the 10 largest companies owned something like half of all the subsidiaries, and I think I am right in saying that they had


an output equal to about 80 per cent. of the total output of the industry. When one considers the interlocking of directorships and of share ownership, in addition to the physical difficulties of free competition from the point of view of purely physical assets, one realises that the words "competitive industry" have no meaning in this context.
I suggest that to insert words which are misleading to the public, and which are quite incapable, if I may say so with deference to the hon. and learned Gentleman, of interpretation by lawyers in the courts, is to add to the burdens and difficulties of those who will have to interpret this Bill in the future, and will do nothing to assist in efficiency or output, or the reduction of prices of the products which the industry will make.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I take the opposite view from that of the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu). Though I am no lawyer, I would not personally experience very much difficulty in giving a reasonable explanation of what would be meant by the words "under competitive conditions." Surely if there is more than one buyer and more than one seller, then reasonably competitive conditions must exist. That may be carrying it ad absurdun. In fact, in this country there are several hundred suppliers of steel, many more suppliers of iron castings, which also come into this Bill, and literally thousands, if not tens of thousands, of purchasers.
On a former Amendment dealing with consultative councils, I made the point that the purpose of this Bill is to demonstrate that we believe our iron and steel industry can operate more favourably, more successfully and more satisfactorily, in the interests of manufacturers and consumers, in a freer economy, rather than in the more rigid economy imposed on it by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss).

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Under the hon. Gentleman's rather surprising definition of "competitive conditions," namely, the existence of more than one buyer and more than one seller, would he explain why in no case investigated by the Restrictive Practices

and Monopolies Commission—which is supported by hon. Members opposite— are there less than a certain number of sellers?

Mr. Nabarro: I have no doubt that that is so, but I think it would be strictly out of order if I were to stray into the question of the purposes and functions of that Commission. I only rejoin this to the hon. Gentleman. If he really believes in the purposes of that Commission, why did he and his party refuse to refer to it the machinations of the National Coal Board, the classic example of malignant monopoly?
To return to the Amendment, I believe that the insertion of these words will be helpful. I do not take the view of the hon. Member for Edmonton that no competition existed in the supply of steel in pre-war years. I, too, was a consumer of steel in pre-war years. I, too, was in the engineering industry buying steel; and I, too, bought the particular material to which he referred—cold rolled strip. In pre-war days, cold rolled strip could be bought from five or six different companies with rolling mills, and under reasonably competitive conditions, with fluctuating prices according to qualities and specifications and the quantity, or bulk, that the consumer required. I am not suggesting, due to the over-all control of Steel House, that there was a completely free market; but there was a reasonably free market, and a very much more successful basis of operation than the monopoly control of the Iron and Steel Corporation such as the right hon. Member for Vauxhall sought to clamp on it.

Mr. Mitchison: I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's views on competition. Could he tell us whether these sellers ever charged different prices for the same product? I am not referring to differences of quality, but strictly similar products.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. and learned Gentleman evidently knows very little about the Iron and Steel Orders issued by his right hon. Friend, for had he studied them he would have found different prices for the same product based on differing quantities supplied within a given period.

Mr. Mitchison: That is a very disingenuous remark.

Mr. Nabarro: There is nothing disingenuous about it. It is one condition of a contract—

Mr. Jack Jones: rose—

Mr. Nabarro: I cannot give way again. I have no doubt the hon. Gentleman will be able to catch the eye of the Chair in due course.
I like these words "under competitive conditions" because they will be very largely the conditions which will obtain by the time this Bill reaches the Statute Book. A moment ago the hon. Gentleman referred to the pressure of demand for iron and steel products in the course of the next few years. I hope that that is so. But it will undoubtedly be matched by the increasing production of the iron and steel industry, which, I remind him, last month produced at a record high level equal to an annual output of 18 million tons. That rate has never previously been achieved.

Mr. Jones: That was under nationalisation.

Mr. Nabarro: Not because of nationalisation, but because of the prospect of freedom again as a great incentive to rising output. What will undoubtedly happen in the course of the next few months is that not only shall we have a relatively free market in iron and steel products, but the supply of many grades of iron and steel may be in excess of demand. [Interruption.] It is because of rising production facilities—and it shows how the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edmonton has insulated himself against the conditions that obtain in engineering today—that at this moment salesmen from iron and steel companies are lining up to sell their products. In fact, we are approaching a free market and the competitive conditions that my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment suggests. The sooner those fully competitive conditions return—and I believe it will be within a matter of a few months —the better I shall be pleased.

Mr. Albu: While, of course, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that production in this country is falling rapidly, may I ask him whether he thinks that the increase in the next five years of 17 per cent. in the supply of steel products is really going to be sufficient for the engineering industry in this country to get

itself out of the conditions we are in at the present time?

Mr. Nabarro: It will be an increase of more than 17 per cent. I have not a slide rule here with me, but last year's production was nearly 17 million tons— and the hon. Gentleman will use his slide rule to check my figures, perhaps—and as production within five years is anticipated to be 20 millions tons there will be an increase of approximately 18½ per cent., corrected to the nearest ½ per cent. However, the point I am making is that we are entering a phase in the iron and steel industry, which will come in the course of the next few months, which we have not seen since pre-war days, with the prospect that there will be a surplus of certain iron and steel products.
I hope that my right hon. Friend, in considering this Amendment and the words "competitive conditions," will bear in mind that factor, and I and many of my hon. Friends hope that he will deration the great majority of iron and steel products at present subject to the allocation system at a very early date. The continuance of that rationing system for even a few weeks too long could have a very harmful effect on iron and steel production. I like the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend. I hope it will be possible to embody it in the Bill, for although the conditions of a free market in fact may be achieved within a few months, I should like to see the words written into the Bill as a tribute and monument to the intentions of my party.

Mr. John Hynd: The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has based his argument on two points. First, he would like to see the words in the Bill. He likes the words "under competitive conditions." Then he said that the purposes of the Amendment are to demonstrate that we believe that producers, manufacturers, can operate better and more efficiently under a competitive economy. But what he seemed to overlook is that the whole purpose of the Clause which he is seeking to amend is to demonstrate that the Government have no faith that producers and manufacturers will operate better and more efficiently in a free, competitive economy.
What is the purpose of the Clause? It says very clearly that where manufacturers fail to produce under competitive


conditions the Minister himself shall be empowered to intervene to impose, or by arrangements with others to ensure, that those very productive facilities which private enterprise fails to produce, shall be produced, irrespective of profit, irrespective of commercial conditions, in the general interests of the nation.
That is the whole purpose of the Clause, and it is, as I say, an admission by the Government of their want of faith, and I think that hon. Members on the other side of the Committee must feel very uncomfortable about all this. This is a monument to their recognition of the fact that in an industry like the iron and steel industry competitive conditions will not produce the goods, and that today the country is in a position in which we can no longer afford to ignore the national consideration and leave our fate entirely to private enterprise.
I should like to remind the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough West (Mr. Simon) and the hon. Member for Kidderminster—I feel rather sorry for them, because they like to talk about competition—of what was pointed out from this side yesterday—that the Tory Party are not a party who really believe in competition: they are a party who believe in profits. The whole purpose of the Bill, of course, is to enable private enterprise and private industry to make profit out of an essential national industry, and the purpose of this Clause is to make it still possible, in spite of that fact, that the national interest shall be served up to a point, where private enterprise fails.
Indeed, if the hon. Gentleman will read on. to subsection (5), he will see that there is no anticipation whatever on the part of the Government that it will be possible for additional productive facilities to be provided under normal competitive conditions, because subsection (5) specifically provides that in this case the Minister shall be in a position to charge the public with necessary subsidies to enable them to be carried on in spite of the impossibility of competitive conditions.
Therefore, I submit, without any criticism, implied or direct, of the Chair, that my reading of the Amendment is that it is a direct negative of the Clause and the direct negative of the purposes which

the Government are seeking to achieve by the Clause. I do not criticise the Chair in any way, but I do draw attention to the fact that the Conservative Party are again on the horns of a dilemma. They are trying to destroy the machine which, as the hon. Member for Kidderminster said, has produced the goods—and produced the goods for the first time, under nationalisation.
It is no good the hon. Member talking in terms of this not being the result of the nationalisation of the industry, but of the anticipation of freedom, because, as he himself said, this is a record production, which we have never achieved before; and it has always been in conditions of freedom that we have fallen short. It was precisely for that reason that nationalisation was undertaken. I therefore hope that the Minister will stand firm in rejecting this Amendment and say, in spite of the price we have to pay private enterprise, that the national interest shall, nevertheless, be served.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. A. R. W. Low): Perhaps it would be convenient if I intervened in this discussion now. I think the Committee will not expect me to enter into some of the controversy that has been raging for a short while about nationalisation, only, as it were, on the border of the matters dealt with by Clause 4, to which this Amendment, moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) relates.
I ought, I think, just to clear up a point referred to by the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) about production in the past year. I do not wish to correct my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster, but he did slightly overstate the case in mentioning the figure of 17 million tons, and, therefore, the percentage calculation in which he joined with the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) was slightly incorrect.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Attercliffe, I must say that the main reason why production has gone up in the last year is because of the plant, the new plant, planned and provided by the industry before it was nationalised.

Mr. J. Hynd: The plant was laid down by the iron and steel industry in an attempt to evade nationalisation. It was the first time that they had laid down a production programme, and it was carried out only by public investment, and would never have been carried out on this scale without it.

Mr. Low: We do not want to get off the point, but the hon. Gentleman must know that that is not strictly correct at all.
5.0 p.m.
I come to the Amendment. The Government attach every bit as much importance to there being competition in the iron and steel industry as does my hon. and learned Friend. I am sure that he is aware—in fact he referred to it—that the words under competitive conditions "apply to the general duty of the Board and, therefore, will colour their approach to all the problems which face them. They have to see that conditions in the industry are conditions in which manufacturers can compete. The duties of the Board are, as it were, to do their best to remove barriers to competition.
My hon. and learned Friend said that as the words have been used once in Clause 3, immediately after the phrase
 efficient, economic and adequate supply,
we ought to use them on this occasion and on another occasion in this Clause. If he is fortunate in catching your eye, Sir Charles, he will suggest that we might use them in Clauses 7 and 8 also.
I am not a learned hon. Member and cannot give the Committee advice on all these legal points, but, as a layman, I would draw the attention of my hon. and learned Friend to the danger of using the same words in different contexts and referring, in particular, to quite different problems. I think he is asking us here to do something out of the best of motives, but my right hon. Friend and I find we cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendment. It would surely be agreed by the Committee that although, in the sense to which I referred a moment ago, conditions should exist in the industry in which manufacturers can compete, the words are quite irrelevant and unnecessary in relation to the tests to be applied by the Board when considering and consulting about provision or use of production facilities or plant.
To make sense of them here we must interpret them, as I think my hon. and learned Friend did, as meaning that the duty of the Board in this connection is to try to influence industry to set up additional capacity just for the sake of promoting competition. I cannot think that the Committee would want to accept that purpose. I cannot think that my hon. and learned Friend will want to pursue his Amendment or really intends that, or, if he intends that, he does not intend the natural consequences of that.
We certainly here do not intend that the Board should have a duty to create competition by hoping to create competitors for the sake of competition. [Laughter.] I ask the Committee to treat this matter quite seriously. We had not the advantage of the presence of the hon. Member for Edmonton on the previous occasion and I was interested to hear his views on this occasion. They were not very surprising to me, because I had read what he had written in other spheres.
This Clause is concerned with the positive functions of the Board and the Minister in relation to development. By their influence the Board are to encourage the right amount and type of development and its proper use. They are given three tests, and that is important. The tests are that capacity should be adequate, plant should enable production to be as efficient as possible and plant should be able to earn enough to justify its cost. That is laid down in the Bill by the words,
efficient, economic and adequate supply.
I thought that the hon. Member, who has studied these matters so much, would have appreciated that.
We submit that to add as a fourth test —that is what it would mean if we included these words as we are dealing with production facilities, the physical premises, plant and machinery—that the plant should increase, or at least not reduce, competition would be wrong. Such a test might require the Board to discourage the expansion of larger plants, for example, because such expansion might threaten the plant of existing competitors with extinction because their plant was not as efficient. In that way the inclusion of the words would, in fact, defeat the very purpose which my hon. and learned Friend has in mind—to gain for the consumer and the nation the benefits which an iron and steel industry, working under


competitive conditions, could give. We would be stopping competition having its effect just at the point where that effect was becoming most valuable.
I would ask my hon. and learned Friend to reconsider this matter and to decide whether he would not like to withdraw the Amendment. I am certain that he knows my right hon. Friend, the Government, and I attach great importance to the inclusion of these words in the general duties of the Board and to the logical consequences of that inclusion. I am certain that he would not wish, by including the words in a different context, to undo all the good work the Government, with his support, have done earlier in the Bill. For that reason, I hope he will withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Simon: I recognise with very great regret that this Amendment has found few friends in the Committee. My hon. Friend flattered my motives, but controverted— although not to my satisfaction—my arguments. It is only right that I should accept the shining example of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), with all of whose arguments I entirely agree. I could not help feeling that if he had been the hon. Member for Sodom and Gomorrah the Cities of the Plain might still be standing. Recognising that we are alone in this Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. George Thomas): I think it would serve the convenience of the Committee for the next Amendment, in page 4, line 45, in the name of the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) to be taken with the three Amendments in page 5, line 3, line 6, and line 9.

Mr, Jack Jones: I beg to move, in page 4, line 45, after "that," to insert:
the amalgamation or co-ordination of certain iron and steel producers or certain.
The first of these Amendments is, in our opinion, a very important, yet, at the same time, a very simple one. We cannot understand why it has been left out of the Bill; the need is so obvious. We are hoping that the Minister will agree that this escaped the notice of the wise men who advised him and that it

was their original intention to have these, or similar words, inserted.
We are very anxious, as has been mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), to make certain that the Board in their duties shall be sure that they are guaranteeing to the nation in the public interest—to use the words of Tory propaganda—the fullest possible use of existing facilities. I could talk for a long time, although I do not intend to do so, about works which, even today, under the Iron and Steel Corporation, and despite all the co-ordination which has taken place and the technical amalgamation which took place before the Corporation came into operation, do not use the existing facilities to the extent of 100 per cent.
Those of us who have been in the industry know what is meant by "using fully and completely." There are plants in this country which because of lack of orders for a particular type of commodity cannot have a long run and cannot use 100 per cent., all the time, the facilities which they have at their disposal. By a system of amalgamation that could be obviated, and we hope that before the Board recommend to the Minister— because that is all they are able to do —additional plant at a very high cost, they will make certain that there shall be, by amalgamation or co-ordination, the fullest possible use made of existing facilities.
The Minister may ask what I mean by amalgamation, and what is the difference, in my mind, between amalgamation and co-ordination. To a practical layman the difference is quite simple. Amalgamation means getting one's money mixed up for all time with other fellows' money, and then one amalgamates. It means, in the case of a company amalgamating locally, taking on one board of directors as against two or three. That is my explanation of amalgamation — when companies join forces and fuse their technical facilities and finance. Coordination is where companies remain viable units in themselves but can coordinate for certain purposes.
I could take the Committee to certain parts of the country where there will be, if the Government have their way, four or five competing companies within very close proximity to each other. I use the


word "competing" in the spirit in which the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) would have used it. We could have a system whereby companies could co-ordinate, not amalgamate, in such things as research. I think that it is a waste of good money, facilities and time for smaller companies not grouped together to set up a research department on their own, or to have an educational system in one particular works. By co-ordination, instead of half a dozen apprentices in one works attending classes, there could be 24 or 25 from different works with one tutor, and overheads would be saved.

Mr. Simon: Does the hon. Gentleman think that that would be covered by Clause 3 (1, d), where arrangements for education and research are expressly dealt with?

Mr. Jones: It would be covered if we could get our Amendment inserted, and in a much more effective way. It is the method laid down that I object to—this spreading of our facilities and knowledge over too wide a sphere.
I do not want to go into technical details, but I can assure the Committee that by a system of amalgamation, which is the important thing, and the technical regrouping—I do not say so much about geographical regrouping—of companies in this country, a tremendous amount of plant could be run in long runs, with immense saving in costly operations. We could get companies co-ordinating on matters of common services to themselves. There is a word, which is never used in these debates, but which has a tremendously important bearing on this great industry. It is the word "refractory." One of the most important things connected with the great iron and steel industry is the production of the right type of refractory—that is, in simple language, the fire brick used in the construction of the lining of the furnaces— which I am glad to remember and not be present at now.
There can be amalgamation and, indeed, co-ordination in that respect. I know of companies which have their subsidiaries and ancillaries dealing with this particular type of product. Those who were engaged with me when I was in the Ministry know something about the preparation of the magnesite brick. By

co-ordination or amalgamation in regard to that one particular raw material, there could be a tremendous saving and help given, particularly to the small company, the less efficient company, and particularly to the company left with the Realisation Agency which will be in the greatest need of help.

Mr. Robson Brown: On the question of co-ordination, would the hon. Gentleman include increased efficiency by combined allocation of orders suitable for certain mills?

Mr. Jones: That is one of the things which I mentioned—the allocation of raw materials. I only mentioned one— refractories. On this question of allocation, co-ordination and the use of services in various geographical areas, transport could be co-ordinated and a tremendous saving in many ways could be effected.

Mr. Robson Brown: And orders, too.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Jones: I mentioned that; I said that small runs are a sheer waste of time. energy and efficiency. Many of us know of works where that has happened in the past.
I now come to the second part of the Amendment—the question of reporting to the Minister when the Board—and I have mentioned this before report that they cannot secure agreement with the companies concerned to do what they think in the public interest should be done. We suggest that this is a very important part of the Amendment and should be put in the Clause.
We want this Board, as we have said so often before and continue to say, to be able to do things. We want a Board that can recommend, go round and make observations, prepare plans and do ail that is necessary in the public interest in supervising those companies which are not prepared to play ball in the public interest. We want the Board to have some power in their recommendations to the Minister to see that the things that they recommend to be done are done.
I know that the Minister and the Tory Party do not like words such as, "By order." They do not like the use of compulsion. We believe that it is necessary in the public interest that, having gone carefully into the whole of the considerations affecting the various companies, and then having decided that in


the public interest such a thing should be done, and having failed to get these things done, the Minister should have power to decide by order that they shall be and must be done.

Mr. Spencer Summers: Would the hon. Gentleman apply that to the direction of labour?

Mr. Jones: Yes, if necessary. I know that the direction of labour was not objected to even by those who did the labour. [An HON. MEMBER: "In war-time."] We ourselves operated the scheme. I was chairman of the Manchester board that did directing of labour —not in peace-time. If direction of labour was necessary in peace-time—I know that I am completely out of order —I personally would give careful consideration to it. It is no use directing raw materials unless we can, to some extent, direct the persons engaged in the use of them, in order to get the best results in the national interest.
We do not ask the Minister to do all this without consultation. The Amendment lays down that there should be consultation with the appropriate representative bodies, workers and employers, concerning suggested plans of co-ordination and amalgamation. We suggest that they should have the right to be heard. If the Minister, as the final arbiter in this matter, were of the opinion that in the public interest certain things should be done, this Amendment would give him the power to have them done. There is no political motive behind this. I am glad to observe that in this debate we are applying our minds to technical and objective things rather than to politically venomous matters, which will never at any time produce a ton of steel.
I have put this Amendment to the Minister in a serious vein and I ask him to give it serious consideration. At some other time I could give him some details about the things that we technical people have in mind. However, for the reasons which I have given, and for many others, I hope he will accept this and the other Amendments in the spirit in which they have been offered.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) seemed to me to be dissociating himself from the general

hymn of praise about the virtues of competition which we heard on the last Amendment. I sympathise with him in that. I agree with him that a certain amount of amalgamation in an industry such as this is desirable. As it works out in real life, competition does not necessarily bring about amalgamation quickly enough. Some pressure from outside is necessary, and that is one of the purposes of the Bill.
I believe, however, that, in seeking to apply compulsory amalgamation, the hon. Member for Rotherham went too far. I have two objections to his proposal, one a practical one and the other on grounds of principle. To the best of my recollection, there is only one precedent for the proposal for compulsory amalgamation, and that was embodied in the Coal Mines Act, 1930. The Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission was endowed with the power of compelling amalgamation where desirable amalgamations were not brought about voluntarily. The judgment of history is that that attempt at compulsory amalgamation was a failure.
Why was it a failure? Hon. Members may say that there was an unhappy atmosphere in the coal industry at that time. That is true, but there was a much more important reason. If two parties, A and B, fail to amalgamate voluntarily, it is because, in the judgment of one or the other, no fair and equitable arrangement is possible. Under the Coal Mines Act, 1930, and in accordance with the proposal in the Amendment, an outside authority then steps in and tries to compel amalgamation. Clearly, it cannot impose an amalgamation which is unjust to either party. Therefore, there has to be written in the condition that the amalgamation must be fair and equitable to both parties.
Previously, both parties did not consider that any fair and equitable arrangement was possible. Yet the outside authority has to find such an arrangement. That has been found, in practice, to be a task of the utmost difficulty, and those with experience of the work of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission came to the conclusion that an attempt to apply compulsory amalgamation, whatever may be said for it in principle, was bound to fail in practice. That is the objection in practice.
There is also a serious objection in principle. I should be the first to say that company A, which does not wish to amalgamate voluntarily with company B, may well be wrong. I go further and say that the individual competitive point of view must be complemented by some central point of view, but, equally, the central point of view need not necessarily be right. I have known cases where the central authority has thought that a plant should close down and its life be ended, but the firm has not subscribed to that view, has staged a remarkable recovery, has vindicated itself and proved the central authority to be wrong
There is the problem. The whole purpose of the Bill is to retain a certain power with a central authority, but not too much. That is the essence of the difference between the Bill and the Act which it is intended to displace The 1949 Act gave all the power to the central authority; the Bill gives some power to it, but also attempts to redress the balance. Amendment after Amendment from the Opposition has no other purpose than to pull the rope once more towards the central authority. In this case there are great dangers of principle in that.
Lastly, I believe the Amendment to be unnecessary. The context in which it is to be placed is quite different from the context of the similar provision in the Coal Mines Act, 1930. Part I of that Act provided for production quotas between pits and for minimum prices; in other words, it was very well calculated to keep the uneconomic unit in being. To prevent the survival of the uneconomic units, in Part II of the Act the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission was given power compulsorily to amalgamate uneconomic units with more efficient ones.
All that does not apply in this instance. Under the Bill the Board has two very important powers. The first power is to fix maximum prices; and I consider that the prices should be so fixed as to make it very difficult indeed for the uneconomic unit to continue in existence. The second power is that of vetoing development schemes. If an uneconomic unit came forward with a grandiose development proposal, the Board could veto it under these powers.

Mr. Peter Roberts: Would the Board be allowed to veto a

scheme because the firm was inefficient or because, in the national interest, production was not required?

Mr. Jones: The condition laid down in the Bill relates to the upsetting of the economic balance of the industry. That condition would be fulfilled if an uneconomic unit were trying to bloat itself uneconomically.
My three reasons for saying that the Amendment should be opposed are, first, that I believe it to be impracticable; secondly, I see dangers in it in principle; and, thirdly, in the light of the other provisions of the Bill, it seems to me to be entirely superfluous.

5.30 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: I followed with attention the argument of the hon. Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones), knowing that he has experience in the industry, but he seems entirely to have failed to reply to the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones). The lion. Member drew an analogy with the Coal Mines Act, 1930. That does not seem to be a very valuable one, because the conditions appear to be entirely different, and I should also have said that nobody associated with the steel industry would like to have an analogy drawn with the coal mining industry of 1930. I cannot see that the hon. Gentleman followed in his argument the line on which he started his speech.
The hon. Gentleman indicated that there were circumstances in which amalgamations of undertakings were desirable on economic or technical grounds. He himself said that they were unlikely to take place voluntarily as rapidly as might be desirable in the general interest, but he then seemed to leave that argument in the air and he failed entirely to show what were the additional pressures which he hinted were in existence.
He mentioned some of the powers which the Board possess to deal with proposals for new development which might be uneconomic, but I am still in the dark about where in the Bill he supposes that the Board, or the Minister for that matter, have powers to exert the sort of pressure which he himself indicated should be exerted to hasten processes


which are generally considered to be desirable by those taking an objective view, although they may not be so obviously desirable to the parties concerned. The parties concerned may have all kinds of considerations in their minds, sometimes considerations of a purely personal nature —not necessarily from dishonourable motives, but from the motive of looking after their own interests and position.
Everybody knows that, when it comes to a question of amalgamation, personal position and prestige, not to mention fortune, are very much in the minds of those who may be called upon to negotiate. It is precisely because that kind of private consideration is bound to be present in those circumstances, human nature being what it is, that those of us who support the Amendment believe it to be in the national interest that there should be some power in the hands of a public body to reach decisions if those concerned are unable to reach them for themselves.
I agree that compulsory amalgamations should be used only as the last resort and not as the first resort; we are not suggesting that they should be the first resort. Our suggestion is that there should be ample consultation. One presumes that, in practice, compulsory amalgamation would be seldom, if ever, used, but the existence of the power as a final sanction seems to us to be of material importance. It is precisely for reasons of that kind that we on this side of the House are putting down Amendments to the Bill which would restore to the Board at least some of the powers contained in the existing Act and put in the existing Act because we thought they were necessary. In fact, the speech made by the hon. Member for Hall Green was one of the most persuasive arguments for public ownership that we have heard this afternoon.
Turning to matters of a lesser degree, where complete amalgamation is not suggested, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham gave one or two very good examples of circumstances in which coordinated action by firms which are either geographically adjacent or technically related might be in the public interest. In such circumstances, as we well know, we often get one or two, or perhaps three, to agree, but we have the awkward chap, the odd man out, who will not agree.
We have examples in every Department. For instance, there are one or two of the agricultural provisions which have been carried on by the present Government, and in which, if a certain number of people have agreed but someone else is being awkward about it or is putting his own private interest before what seems to be the public interest, powers exist to bring into the scheme the awkward or recalcitrant person.
It seems to me that these powers would be used very seldom in practice. Indeed, it would be a sign of failure of administration if they had to be used frequently. Nevertheless, it is desirable that they should exist and should be used, on occasion, if necessary. Without going into further detail—there are others here who are more competent to do that—it seems to me that, in principle, if a Bill of this kind is serious in its intentions to take responsibility for the well-being of this industry, then it cannot be operated without the addition of some such powers as are indicated in the Amendment.

Mr. Summers: As this is the first opportunity I have had of intervening in this debate during the Committee stage, perhaps I may be allowed on this occasion to state a personal interest—a statement which perhaps will carry me through any other contribution I may be fortunate enough to make. I hope I need not say anything beyond that.

Mr. Jack Jones: What about the future?

Mr. Summers: The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) asks me about the future. He knows no more about that than I do.
I hope the Minister will resist this Amendment. It deals with two aspects of the functions of the Board—amalgamations and co-ordination. I take the view that it is very easy grossly to exaggerate the benefit to be derived from amalgamations. The hon. Member for Rotherham referred to instances of unnecessary changing in runs which added to cost and decreased efficiency. But amalgamations are not necessarily needed to remedy such defects.
The hon. Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) referred to the personal aspect of negotiations, and her argument was that, human nature being what it is, an impartial body should come along from


outside and compel amalgamation against the will of individuals when they themselves would not or could not produce the amalgamation. I should have thought that that argument was an argument for the exact opposite, by reason of the fact that we cannot overlook human nature and we cannot, therefore, expect a compulsory amalgamation, an amalgamation which is not wanted by the parties concerned, to work efficiently and harmoniously afterwards. Human nature will continue to operate.
In my view, therefore, if an impartial body suggests to two firms that they could amalgamate with advantage, and those concerned do not see the advantage to them of the amalgamation, there seems to be no merit in forcing amalgamation upon them as the Amendment suggests.

Mr. Jack Jones: The hon. Gentleman suggested that there was some other method by which the loss of efficiency and the increase in cost could be avoided. Would he mind telling us what he proposes that method should be?

Mr. Summers: I was coming to that. I was dealing with the two things separately—with the question of amalgamation and with the question of what the Amendment calls co-ordination. I take it that by co-ordination he means drawing attention to what might be improved methods of working by closer association between the policles of firms which are about to be Tun under separate management.
I take the view that if a survey and review of this industry by the Board reveals that there are uneconomic practices which could with advantage be eliminated, then reasonable people, having put before them the case for the change which is recommended, will see the virtue of the proposals made, in their own self-interest if for no other reason, and we shall not need the compulsory element to bring about the change.
I would go as far as to say that if those who are reviewing the industry are not able to convince the firms concerned that advantages can be derived from closer co-ordination and from working together, then I shall be somewhat sceptical of the advice which has been tendered to those firms. After all, if the recommended change is to produce greater efficiency and to reduce costs, it will obviously be

in the interests of those firms that the change should be made.
What the hon. Gentleman is seeking is available to him already by the supervision of the Board who will, by their very position, be able to take a broader view of the situation than might be possible to individual managements concerned primarly with their own affairs. But, having taken that view and having shown the individual companies that there is something to be gained in the general efficiency of the industry by taking such advice, I think we can safely leave it at that. I would suspect any advice which was tendered to them and which was driven through on the basis of an Amendment such as this because individual companies would not accept it, For that reason, I hope that the Minister will hesitate before he puts any words of this kind into the Bill.

Mr. Mitchison: I want to ask the hon. Gentleman one question. I do not necessarily agree with what he is saying about the amalgamation of two reluctant concerns; but supposing one concern wanted amalgamation and the other did not, and it was in the national interest that the two should be amalgamated, what action does he suggest should he taken in such a case?

Mr. Summers: The hon. and learned Gentleman is basing his ideas on certain assumptions which are very unwise to accept at their face value. If it is in the national interest that two firms should amalgamate, one of which does not wish to do so, I am not at all sure that it is possible to assert that such a compulsory amalgamation is in the national interest. That is the basis of the case I am putting forward.
The weapon of compulsory amalgamation is one which I think it would be as well for the Board not to wield in the years to come. If they cannot produce the results which they wish by other methods, it is unlikely that they could achieve results by using such a compulsory weapon. It is open to the Realisation Agency to effect certain amalgamations before they sell the assets which will presently fall into their possession. Therefore, some of the instances of possible amalgamations which might occur to the mind of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment could be brought about, if it were thought the right thing to do, through the


medium of the Realisation Agency, before the assets were sold to private enterprise. So it is only in regard to the future—after such new arrangements have been made—that this Amendment will have any validity. Much of what this Amendment seeks to do can be done beforehand.

Mrs. White: If the hon. Member thinks that at this moment the amalgamations which may be carried out by the Agency are desirable—and they are possible only through the happy accident of the Labour Government passing the nationalisation Bill—why does he imagine that there will be no other point of time in the future when an amalgamation might be desirable and that powers to secure this amalgamation should be available?

Mr. Summers: I am saying that there is another instrument which is available to those who wish to see amalgamation proceeding at a faster rate. The Realisation Agency can achieve this amalgamation by reason of the fact that it possesses all the shares at the moment. I distinguish between the present day and the future in the use of such an instrument because I ran see that there will need to he a certain closing down of works, which might be done with less social dislocation if it were associated with the resale of assets of some of the smaller companies, which are less able to look after their employees than the larger ones.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) seems to think it is quite impossible for the interests of the country and the interests of different steel masters to be at variance. Even if they were at variance he seems to think that it is quite impossible for the steel masters themselves to act in a way which is harmful to the national interests. There are many on this side of the Committee, at any rate, who do not share that view.

Mr. Summers: I said nothing that could possibly be interpreted in that way.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Mallalieu: I am sorry if I have misinterpreted the hon. Gentleman. I shall certainly read with great care tomorrow what he has said. At any rate, that was the very definite impression he left in my mind—perhaps wrongly.
But even if there are interests of steel masters who are thought by some impartial authority to need amalgamation, the hon. Member is of opinion that the steel masters should be the judges in their own case. Our case is that there should be some impartial authority which should decide between the national interests and those of the steel masters, if such should appear to be in conflict in any way.
The hon. Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) attributed to us the motive of wanting merely to keep in being the powers of the central authority in the steel industry.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: It seemed to me that the difference between the two Measures which we are discussing is that in the 1949 Act all the power rested with the central authority, and the purpose of this Measure is to redress the balance while still leaving a modicum of power with the central authority.

Mr. Mallalieu: Exactly. The hon. Member said that all our Amendments seem to seek to keep the position as it was under the Corporation. That may or may not be true; but in this case I suggest there is an entirely different reason —one which he should consider very carefully. The Government have stated quite plainly, in Clause 4 (1), what is their intention with regard to the steel industry.
I give them every credit for being absolutely sincere in this matter. They say that they want this industry to be efficient and economic, and to produce an adequate supply of steel. We all want that. Here we have an authority which is claimed by the Government to be an impartial one, and let us assume for the sake of my argument that the Board is to be impartial. All our Amendment seeks to insert into the Bill is a provision that if that impartial authority says that certain amalgamations are necessary to achieve the very object which the Government say, in Clause 4 (1), they intend to achieve—an efficient and economic industry which will give adequate supplies—those amalgamations should take place.
In other words, we want to do precisely what the Government say they intend to do in Clause 4 (1). If a Board with such authority as this Board should have were to say that every steel master


should paint his face green in the interest of having an efficient and economic industry. I should have thought that the Government would have leapt at it and said, "By all means let them do so if it is in the national interest." I have taken a rather stupid example, but even in such a case, if the Board recommended such a thing the Government should be pleased to back them up.
In this case, we suggest that if the Board recommends something which, on everybody's argument, will be necessary in the future—some degree of amalgamation and co-ordination—the Government should accept their recommendation. That is all we are trying to put in the Bill. I hope that the Government will very seriously consider accepting the Amendment.

Mr. Low: We have had a valuable debate and I want to thank the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) for the spirit in which he opened it. We are fortunate to have had the hon. Gentleman speaking for us at the outset from his experience and also my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) who has experience of a different nature in these matters. I want also to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) for his helpful speech.
These Amendments are aimed at providing for compulsory amalgamations. In the course of this debate we have had to discuss seriously the general desirability of amalgamation and co-ordination inside the industry, but the purpose of the Amendments is to make provision in the Bill for compelling those who are unwilling to amalgamate. In our view such coercion is contrary to the spirit of the Bill. Having said that, I want the Committee to bear with me while I explain why in our view it is unnecessary as well as wrong, to make provision for compulsory amalgamation.
There is no doubt that some amalgamation and co-ordinations may be good because they may lead to more economic and efficient use of plant or to the creation of more economic, efficient and productive plant. There is no doubt that this has happened in the past both in this country and in others. History shows that our steel industry, like many other industries, has developed in exactly that

way. However, I agree with my hon. Friends that in the matter of amalgamation, on the one hand, and independence, on the other, it is necessary to keep a balance, just as it is necessary, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green, to keep a balance between control and complete freedom inside the industry.
In our view, that balance is kept in the Bill. The consultation duty of the Board under this Clause is concerned primarily with the physical capacity, with physical plant and so on, but in the course of carrying out their duty they will discuss and consult about organisation. However, organisation, and particularly amalgamation and co-ordination, are only some of the means whereby better use can be made of productive capacity in this industry. It would be wrong for that reason to introduce one method into this Clause. Incidentally, this is an argument which I remember the right hon. Gentleman using in his previous Bill.
The question we have to consider is the best way to secure desirable amalgamations. This Amendment is carefully drawn and is a reasonable way of introducing coercion, if coercion has to be introduced. In this Amendment the Opposition are saying that if consultation fails the best way is to provide for compulsion. In our view, the best way is to rely upon the ordinary economic forces of competition helped by the guidance which the Board can give the industry. That is the best test of the desirability of amalgamations and the best spur to amalgamations.
The hon. Lady the Member for Flint. East (Mrs. White) referred to the Productivity Report on the Iron and Steel Industry. I thought we might have quotations from it in the course of this debate. I do not know whether the hon. Lady noticed that in referring to the United States industry the compilers of the report say on page 9 that
intensive competition has stimulated both the amalgamation of firms and investment in sources of raw materials.
There is no doubt that under competitive conditions amalgamations take place, and that competition may well be a spur to amalgamations which are desirable from the point of view of efficiency.

Mr. Mitchison: The hon. Gentleman is agreeing with Karl Marx.

Mr. Low: I am not certain what the hon. and learned Gentleman is joking about, but no doubt we shall have the benefit of his humour after my speech.

Mr. Mitchison: I was only congratulating the hon. Gentleman on agreeing with Karl Marx.

Mr. Low: I am delighted to have given some pleasure to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I was saying that many amalgamations and co-ordinations have taken place in the past in our own iron and steel industry. The hon. Member for Rotherham will know the history of the Lancashire Steel Corporation.

Mr. Jack Jones: Indeed, I do.

Mr. Low: Many of the famous names of our steel industry have so arisen— United Steel, Colvilles, Bairds and Scottish, Dorman Long, Richard Thomas and Baldwins, The Steel Company of Wales and many more. Therefore, it cannot be said that the history of the steel industry discloses that it has been slow to amalgamate in the past.
Equally I ought to emphasise a point which I made earlier. It should never be forgotten that in our country small firms have a most important part to play, both to supply short runs, to supply special steel and to meet special needs.

Mr. Jones: indicated assent.

Mr. Low: I note that the hon. Gentleman is nodding his head. When we are thinking about the problem of achieving a balance between amalgamation and independence, it is as well that we should note the views of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. In their Report of 1937 they said that in their view it was necessary to take steps:
to secure the full advantage of modern plant developments and of plant production. This can be done either by the grouping of existing individual undertakings in amalgamation or by co-operation between independent undertakings in the setting up of new plant or in the correlation of different stages of production…. It has been suggested to us that there should be power to compel amalgamations where these are proved to be desirable, but while we attach great importance to amalgamation in appropriate cases as a factor in achieving a balanced and efficient organisation "—
I want to emphasise the following words:
we are satisfied that the full benefits only accrue where it represents a natural alliance

based on community of interests, and we doubt whether for this industry, looking to its individualist tradition and the steps it is now taking along the path of co-operation, any advantage would be gained by the creation or use of such powers.
Today we hold exactly the same view. In the succeeding words to those I have read out, the Committee said they were satisfied that:
the Federation organisation will foster a spirit of co-operation.
In addition to that, under the Bill we now have the Board to help to foster any spirit of amalgamation or co-ordination if that should appear desirable from their point of view.
6.0 p.m.
I am deliberately replying somewhat fully to this important diseussion and I hope that the Committee will forgive me. Reference was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green to another example of compulsory amalgamation under the Coal Mines Act. I agree with what he said. In practice, I am told, all the schemes that were prepared fell foul of the terms of the Act that required the scheme to be fair and equitable to all persons affected thereby.
The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East tried to draw a distinction between the conditions under that Act and the conditions which we are now dealing with under the Bill. The hon. Lady may well have been right in seeking to draw that distinction, but I must point out that, I believe, exactly the same words are used in the last of the Amendments that we are discussing and in that Act; so that the point made by my hon. Friend is a good one despite any distinction that the hon. Lady may be able to see.

Mrs. White: The distinction I was attempting to draw was not in the terms of the Act but in the state of the two industries, and in respect of the quality of management even of the two industries, in coal mining in 1930 and in the steel industry today.

Mr. Low: One of the difficulties—in fact, the main difficulty—to which my hon. Friend referred applies with equal force to these Amendments, because exactly the same words have been used.
There is one other point that I ought to make. I do not know whether the


Opposition realise that, as the Amendments are drafted, they would relate only to horizontal amalgamations and would not cover the vertical amalgamations, about which the right hon. Gentleman is on record on a number of occasions, which are, or may be, equally or possibly more desirable; that is, the introduction of finishing processes into steel works.
I should remind the Committee that the Productivity Report, in referring to the size of units and so on, drew attention on page 96 to the desirability of that type of amalgamation, which would not be covered by the Amendments.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Why not?

Mr. Low: Because the Amendment relates to iron and steel producers, and the finishing processes are not included in the Bill under the definition of "iron and steel producers." I am always willing to give way to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) on a matter of law or of interpretation of statute, however, and I will certainly look at the point again; but I am advised that that is so and perhaps, therefore, the hon. and learned Member will take it from me and will look at it rather closely.
Therefore, in our view, not only would it be contrary to the spirit of the Bill to accept the Amendments, or any of them, but it is unnecessary to do so—and unnecessary for the purpose which the hon. Member for Rotherham, at any rate, who moved the Amendment, had in mind. I am sure that when he moves an Amendment which makes it easier to have amalgamations, he wants only to see desirable amalgamations and co-ordinations. In our view, the economic forces, coupled with the advice of the Board, will do all that. The Board can persuade and encourage co-operation by their control over prices if those prices are not competitive. They can see that only those manufacturers who are efficient earn a profit and, therefore, can keep business, and if it so happens that amalgamations are desirable in particular products it is even possible for them to see that nobody is getting away with an unamalgamated plant inefficiently because the prices are too high.
They have all those weapons and, finally, they have the good sense of the

steel industry. There is also the fact that the steel firms will be competing one with another and will be desiring to see that their plants are efficient and profitable. For that reason, we ask the Committee to reject the Amendment, but also for the reasons I have given we are grateful for the spirit in which the debate has been conducted and for the discussion of this most important matter.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I regret, but I am not surprised, that the hon. Gentleman, who has explained the Government's situation very well, as he always does, has rejected this Amendment which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones). I say straightaway that the hon. Gentleman's arguments have not convinced us in the slightest. They are a continuation of the front which the Government have put up, based on the idea that the industry is perfectly all right and that if it is given a supervisory Board without any powers whatsoever, all will be for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
We do not believe that everything is perfect in the industry. We accept the view of the party opposite that conflicts have arisen and are likely to arise in this industry between private and public interests. Otherwise, the Government would not say that there is a need for any public or Government supervision of the industry. We accept that. We say that if there is a case for public or Government supervision of the industry, the supervisory body must have some authority to do something when it is convinced that things are radically wrong or contrary to the public interest.
The Government say that they are going to put on the Board reliable, responsible business people, leaders of the steel industry, independent leaders of industry from outside, people with great knowledge on the industrial side, one or two independent people and a number of trade union representatives. It is to be a body of people whom the Government are to choose from leaders of industry. But the Government say that they are not going to trust these people with even the elementary powers of acting when they think that something is seriously wrong and is damaging the public interest or if


they think that there should be coordination or correlation in production between two or three or more iron and steel works, or, maybe, amalgamation.
What is happening? The Clause allows for the provision by the Government, if necessary, of additional production facilities, if required in the interests of the nation, to ensure that the supply of iron and steel products is adequate, and efficiently and economically produced. It is proposed that in certain circumstances the Government should be entitled themselves to build further production facilities. But it is just as important to see that the existing production facilities are being properly used.
It would be madness and wasteful of our national resources if the Minister were to proceed with the building of new production facilities of any sort unless he had not only the knowledge that existing production facilities were operating at 100 per cent., but, if they were not, had the power to do something about it. How much better it would be—it would save millions of pounds, perhaps, of our resources—if the Minister were to be able to say that, instead of building certain additional facilities in order to increase the production of a particular type of iron or steel product by a certain amount, he were able to increase the productivity from existing plant by correlation between certain manufacturers, or by amalgamation.
It is significant that every hon. Member on the other side of the Committee has admitted in some form or other that some amalgamation or coordination in this industry is necessary or desirable. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) put it at its lowest and said that the case for amalgamation could easily be exaggerated—that is accepting that there is a case for amalgamation in certain instances. The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown), in an interjection, seemed to be very favourable to the idea of the need—I am sure he is perfectly right—of some co-ordination in the placing of orders, so as to get long runs in the mills, and so on. The hon. Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) went so far as to say that amalgamation in an industry such as this is continuously desirable. Incidentally, it is interesting

to notice that all those Members opposite who a few minutes ago had been demanding greater competition in the industry, were not present when the other Members on the benches opposite were demanding more and more amalgamation.
From my information about the industry, which is not as much as that of some of the other hon. Members who have spoken on either side of the Committee, a great deal could be saved in the industry, and a substantial increase in efficiency and production achieved, by a wide degree of correlation in production where it does not exist today. There is much overlapping and much could be saved, for instance, in the transport of pig iron from one part of the country to the other. One of the next steps which the Iron and Steel Corporation had in mind was to carry out a survey of the industry to see where such economies could be made. It was easy for them to do that without interfering with anyone's personal or private interests or profits because the whole thing was in one hand. There was one financial kitty for the whole show.
It having been agreed by hon. Members opposite that amalgamation and coordination are desirable—it may be we disagree on the extent—what is the argument against our proposals? It is that co-ordination cannot be forced on people who do not want it, and still less amalgamation. In other words, the personal and private interests of the individuals who are at present in control of the iron and steel plants should be superior to the national interests if those individuals say that they do not want co-ordination, or do not like amalgamation, or do not like the people with whom they would have to amalgamate, or do not want to lose their independence—or for a hundred and one other reasons.
The position seems to be that if amalgamation is unacceptable to a board of directors for any of the reasons I have outlined, then, even if it is in the public interest that such co-ordination or amalgamation should take place, nevertheless the will of those people who are in charge of the private companies is to prevail over the public interest. The view of the Minister and the Board, composed of people of the highest quality chosen because of their immense knowledge of the industry, is not to prevail;


the view of those who are concerned with private and personal interests is to be paramount.
We say that that is wholly wrong and a wicked sacrifice of public to private interests. If the public interest is to be looked after as we on this side of the Committee want it looked after, this supervisory Board should be given some authority in the matter. We are told that the situation will be dealt with by persuasion. But the Board may not be able to do it that way. The Minister, in reply, said that the Board will have the power to fix maximum prices. That will not affect the situation. It may be argued by hon. Members opposite that firms making good profits should be left alone. But those firms may nevertheless be inefficient and may be wasting the national resources. Price control, in our view, is not the thing which can be used where there is a prima facie case for co-ordination or amalgamation.
We say that this Board, which is to be set up to protect the public interest, has not been given any power so far to do anything worth while. If it is not to be allowed to draw up plans for the industry, in this limited sphere it should surely be given power to act, particularly in cases where the Minister's advisers are convinced that co-ordination or amalgamation should take place. If there are objections to it, obviously the local people will reveal them, and if so, no one will want to force it through: but where the objections are not sound—and they will not always be, because in some cases it will be found that people are unwilling to co-ordinate because of certain idiosyncrasies, such as that they have been independent all their lives, or for other selfish reasons —and where the Minister and the Board nevertheless say that it is desirable and essential in the public interest that amalgamation or coordination should be effected, then it should be done.
We cannot understand what the Government are afraid of and why they should continue to adhere to the principle that in no circumstances whatever, even where the public interest is endangered, are they going to interfere

in the steel industry, but prefer to leave it to those in control—the interests of private profit—to be the sole arbiters.
In that context the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary is perfectly logical, but we take the opposite view. We say that where it is proved to the Minister and to Parliament that private interests are holding up the public interest, then someone—either the Minister or the Board, possibly after Parliamentary discussion—should be able to say that the public interest must prevail over private interests in this important basic industry. It is for that reason that we have moved this Amendment which we think is a great improvement, and I advise my hon. Friends to support it in the Lobby.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Robson Brown: I am only going to intervene for a short time to answer the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss), because the whole of his argument was directed to the suggestion that the Board could not and never would be able to deal with such a situation as has been envisaged in the Committee this afternoon. This we on this side of the Committee definitely repudiate. The Bill provides all the moral authority necessary. There is no question whatever that in certain circumstances some form of amalgamation may be desirable in the public interest, and in the short time that I want to speak I should like to separate these two questions of amalgamation and coordination.
Amalgamation of a physical and financial nature of two or more companies can generally be required for two specific purposes. One is because there is a substantial shortage of orders which necessitate, for efficiency reasons, the closing down of one or more plants. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) shakes his head.

Mr. Jack Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting a repetition of what happened in the past when companies were amalgamated and the tradesmen were thrown out of work and got nothing from the industry, while the directors of the companies which were amalgamated continued to receive emoluments from the company in being?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member for Rotherham knows very well that I am not suggesting anything of the sort in any shape or form. On the contrary, I want to ensure that such a situation does not arise, because arbitrary compulsory judgment by outside persons is not always the right judgment. The hon. Member was quite right when he said that frequently the position arose where national or international trade was at a particularly low level and all the arguments were in favour of closing a certain works, but, on the other hand, local conditions demanded that they should remain open. Then somehow or other the circumstances changed, the life of the works continued, and the work people and their employment were protected.

Mr. Jones: rose—

Mr. Brown: Let me develop the other point. The other reason for these amalgamations is when there is an increased demand for a product and it would appear that the productivity of the company is not rapid enough and it may be desirable to extend capacity. This Clause as it stands provides for such a situation, for it deals with additional production. The power of the Board and, through the Board, of the Minister, is clear and specific, and the persuasion they can exercise is very considerable. There are considerable financial facilities to assist development in progressive firms, and in a changed position any stubborn or obdurate firm which refused to cooperate would be virtually put out of business in a short space of time and its competitors would develop at its expense.
Such powers are very powerful factors which the Board can bring to bear, and I think that my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee believe that that kind of thing is far better in the end than the compulsory power envisaged by the Opposition about which we have heard so much during this debate.

If I may add one thing at this juncture, I feel that, even if there is a company whose works are somewhat out of date and whose economy may be behind what is expected, it should not be arbitrarily refused the opportunity of submitting recommendations and applications for development. I do not think one could arbitrarily say, because a particular works has, up to a moment in time, perhaps not been as efficient as it might be, therefore it is to be cut out from any opportunities to develop. If I misunderstood my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) I will give way.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: I must repudiate that misinterpretation of my words. It is far from the spirit of the Bill, and if my hon. Friend will read my speech tomorrow he will see that it is far from what I said.

Mr. Brown: I am glad that my hon. Friend has put my doubts on that matter at rest, but that was how I understood him as he was speaking.
I wish to deal with what the hon. Member for Rotherham said about coordination being desirable and that there were many instances where it would be very effective and most useful. He knows perfectly well that the whole tone and tempo of the industry today, throughout the industry, is to co-ordinate wherever it can on every subject it can for the general benefit. To take the spheres of research and education, there are divisional committees in regard to education, and in the case of research we are operating in much the same way. Over a broad field the industry is moving in the most progressive way possible, and in that respect there should be no fear whatever.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 226; Noes, 249.

Division No. 86.]
AYES
[6.22 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Benn, Wedgwood
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)


Albu, A. H.
Benson, G.
Burton, Miss F. E.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Beswick, F
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bing, G. H. C
Callaghan, L. J.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Blackburn, F.
Carmichael, J.


Awbery, S S.
Blenkinsop, A.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Boardman, H.
Champion, A. J


Baird, J.
Bowles, F. G.
Chapman, W. D.


Balfour, A.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Chetwynd, G. R.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Brockway, A. F.
Clunie, J.


Bartley, P.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Coldrick, W.


Bence, C. R.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Colliok, P. H.




Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Cove, W. G.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Janitor, B.
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Rhodes, H.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Richards, R.


Daines, P.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Ross, William


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Deer, G.
Keenan, W.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E


Delargy, H. J.
Kenyon, C.
Short, E. W.


Dodds, N. N.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
King, Dr. H. M
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Kinley, J.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphil[...]y)
Lewis, Arthur
Stater, J.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
MacColl, J. E.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
McGhee, H. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
McGovern, J.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Ewart, R.
McInnes, J.
Sparks, J. A.


Fernyhough, E.
McLeavy, F.
Steele, T.


Fienburgh, W.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Finch, H. J.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Follick, M.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E


Foot, M. M.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Sylvester, G. O.


Forman, J. C.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Manuel, A. C.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Freeman, John (Watford)
Mellish, R. J.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Messer, F.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Gibson, C. W.
Mitehison, G. R.
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Glanville, James
Moody, A. S.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Morley, R.
Thurtle, Ernest


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Tomney, F.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Moyle, A.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Griffiths Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)
Mulley, F. W.
Viant, S. P.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Murray, J. D.
Weitzman, D.


Hale, Leslie
Nally, W.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Coins Valley)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
West, D. G.


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Oldfield, W. H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Hamilton, W. W.
Oliver, G. H.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Hannan, W.
Orbach, M.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Hargreaves, A.
Oswald, T.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Padley, W. E.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Hastings, S.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Wigg, George


Hayman, F. H.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Wilkins, W. A.


Herbison, Miss M.
Pannell, Charles
Williams, David (Neath)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Pargiter, G. A.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Hobson, C. R.
Parker, J.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Holman, P.
Paton, J.
Williams, W. R. (Droyleden)


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Winterbottem, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Popplewell, E.
Winterbottom, Richard (BrIghtside)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Porter, G.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Wyatt, W. L.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Yates, V. F.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Proctor, W. T.



Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pryde, D. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Pearson and Mr. Bowden




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Campbell, Sir David


Alport, C. J. M.
Bovine, J. R. (Toxteth)
Carr, Robert


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Birch, Nigel
Carson, Hon. E.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J
Bishop, F. P.
Cary, Sir Robert


Arbuthnot, John
Black, C. W.
Channon, H.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Bowen, E. R.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Boyle, Sir Edward
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M
Braine, B. R.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)


Baldwin, A. E.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W)
Cole, Norman


Banks, Col. C
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H
Colegate, W. A.


Barber, Anthony
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert


Barlow, Sir John
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Baxter, A. B.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G T
Cranborne, Viscount


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Bullard, D. G
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E
Crouch, R. F.


Bell, Philip (Belton, E.)
Burden, F. F. A.
Crowder, Sir John (Finehley)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)







Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Davidson, Viscountess
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Profumo, J. D.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Raikes, Sir Victor


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Rayner, Brig. R.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA
Keeling, Sir Edward
Remnant, Hon. P,


Donner, P. W.
Kerr, H. W.
Renton, D. L. M.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Lambton, Viscount
Robertson, Sir David


Drayson, G. B.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Drewe, C.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Robson-Brown, W.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Leather, E. H. C.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A H
Roper, Sir Harold


Duthie, W. S.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T
Russell, R. S.


Erroll, F. J.
Linstead, H. N.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Fell, A.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Finlay, Graeme
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Scott, R. Donald


Fort, R.
Low, A. R. W.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Foster, John
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Shepherd, William


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
McAdden, S. J.
Spearman, A. C. M


Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Speir, R. M.


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Gammans, L. D.
McKibbin, A. J.
Spans, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Glyn, Sir Ralph
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Stevens, G. P.


Godber, J. B.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
MacLeod, John (Ross and Crornarty)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M


Gough, C. F. H.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Storey, S.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Summers, G. S.


Grimond, J.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Markham, Major S. F.
Teeling, W.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Hal[...], John (Wycombe)
Marples, A. E.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Harden, J. R. E.
Maude, Angus
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Harrison, Cot. J. H. (Eye)
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N


Harvey, Air Cdre. A, V. (Macclesfield)
Mellor, Sir John
Tilney, John


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Turner, H. F. L


Hay, John
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Turton, R. H


Heald, Sir Lionel
Nicholls, Harmar
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Heath, Edward
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Vane, W. M. F.


Higgs, J. M. C
Nicholson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Vosper, D. F.


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Wade, D W.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nugent, G. R. H.
Wakefield, Sir WaveII (St. Marylebone)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Nutting, Anthony
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Holland-Martin, C. J
Odey, G. W.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Holt, A. F.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Watkinsen, H. A.


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Wellwood, W.


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Orr-Owing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Osborne, C.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Peake, Rt. Hon O.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Wills, G.


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hurd, A. R.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Wood, Hon.R


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M
York, C


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.



Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Powell, J. Enoch
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hylton-Faster, H. B. H.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W)
Major Conant and Mr. Kaberry.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Albu: I beg to move, in page 4, line 45, to leave out "production."

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I think it will be convenient if the Committee discuss this Amendment together with the two following Amendments in line 46, namely, after "facilities," insert "for production" and after "Britain," insert:
or for the supply in Great Britain or overseas of raw material for use in the iron and steel industry in Great Britain.

Mr. Albu: These Amendments if accepted, would give to the Board, and therefore I suppose to the Minister, powers which it seems to me they certainly ought to have. Whether they ever have to exercise them is another matter, but certainly it would seem right that, within the powers given to the Board in this Clause to make provision to use facilities for the production of iron and steel, the Board ought to have the power to provide for the production of raw materials.
Clause 9 provides power for the importation and distribution of raw materials, but nowhere in the Bill is any provision made for the Board itself to undertake, or to get anyone else to undertake, the actual production of raw materials. In existing conditions in this country which, under the developing economic conditions of Great Britain are likely to continue, it is absolutely essential that the Board should have this power to develop sources of raw material. I do not think it is any secret—certainly it is not a secret in this Committee—that as recently as the early part of last year the output of the steel industry was seriously restricted by a shortage of iron ore. When the Iron and Steel Corporation came into office, its opinion was that the arrangements for the supply of iron ore from abroad were quite inadequate.
Whether the responsible authorities had foreseen the situation which arose quite suddenly from the stopping of the supply of steel scrap from Germany—which, after all, was bound to come to an end— they certainly made inadequate plans for dealing with it. It is only in this year, under the stimulus of criticism from the Corporation and of the fact of shortage, that there has been a very considerable change; and also that they have decided to build a number of ore ships and improve the ore-handling facilities at the ports.
This problem of the development of resources abroad is very important, although, of course, it is equally the case that we have been expanding the consumption of home-produced ore. In their annual report, the Iron and Steel Corporation state that they consider there is further scope for the integration of the iron-ore excavating companies of this country—they vary a great deal in size. activity and efficiency—in order that there may be more efficient exploitation of the ore fields. It may welt be that the Board would itself desire to undertake work of this sort.
The home ores are a small proportion of the total consumed and are quite inadequate for our immediate requirements, although I suppose that the final proportion of home and imported ores is a matter of fairly long-term economic planning, and may have a considerable effect on the location of industry, and so on. But if the sources of foreign ores

can be increased, if sources of richer ores can be found, if further sources can be found, although they are at present likely to be in soft currency areas, it is bound to mean considerable saving for the industry in production costs.
It has been estimated that during the next five years the requirements of imported ore are likely to rise to between 15 million and 16 million tons compared with the consumption of approximately 10 million tons during the last year. I think I am right in saying that there have been recent discoveries or the exploitation of considerable new fields. I believe it is generally considered that the growing American demand will be satisfied on the American continent. But there is also a growing demand from the continuously expanding European industry. If this goes on, if expansion continues at anything like the present rate, we may again find ourselves in difficulties. I believe that at present the expansion of ore production and supplies is taking place mostly in North and West Africa, and no doubt other new sources will be discovered in the future.
The question is who will be in a position to exploit those resources. This is not a unique problem for this country. It is part of the general problem of the supply of raw materials for all our industries, and there would seem to be a general recognition of that which is not confined to any one part of the Committee or any form of political opinion. If we are to ensure that over the rest of this century we shall have adequate supplies of raw materials for our industries, particularly the metal-using industries, which it is hoped will expand at a considerable rate, it will be necessary for this country to invest in the production of raw material supplies from abroad to an even greater extent than is being done at the present. Only then will supplies be safeguarded.
The Iron and Steel Corporation stated in its annual report that it may be necessary to increase producer-ownership and control of suitable foreign ore fields. I realise that this is taking place at the present time; but it may well be that no individual company, even under the form of co-ordination or supervision which will exist when this Bill becomes an Act —if it ever does—would be willing or able to undertake this sort of work, at


least not on the scale which may be necessary if we are to be quite safe in the years to come.
The question is whose responsibility it will be to see not only that there are facilities for importing and distribution, but for the actual exploitation of ore fields and for the production of the ore. We do not know yet what portion of the industry will remain in public hands. We on this side think that probably a substantial portion will so remain. It may well be that those responsible for directing the policy of the parts of the industry which remain in public hands may want to safeguard their raw material supplies. It seems to us that only the Board, perhaps in conjunction with the Minister, can take the longterm view of the investment needed and may alone be willing to undertake the investment which will safeguard supplies in future. Therefore, it should have the power to do it itself.
I have referred to ore supplies which are the most important and which I think it is right to say have caused the main bottleneck. There is also the problem of coke supplies which may again cause a bottleneck in future. I understand that in the next five years another 4,500,000 tons of coke will be required. It is true that at present responsibility is shared between the industry, the Corporation and the National Coal Board, with most of the responsibility being on the industry. In the end that will become the responsibility of the separate companies if they are sold back to private enterprise; but, again, in the long-term view the Board might be interested.
Also there is the question of the supply of the very important alloying minerals without which the steel industry or the engineering industry cannot be carried on today. These include tungsten, vanadium and molybdenum. The Perry Report, an American report on the supply of raw materials, estimated that American consumption of tungsten would go up by 150 per cent. in the next 26 years and that of molybdenum by 170 per cent. The consumption of all these minerals, as well as of most non-ferrous metals would go up by at least twice. It might be necessary to safeguard the raw material supplies of this country through some central authority. It seems to be obvious

that the Board should do that, and should be able to undertake development abroad.
I have said that this Amendment compels nobody to do anything. It gives to the Board powers which we think it would be irresponsible not to give them. They may not have to use them, but it seems to me that there can be no argument for refusing to give these powers in case they should be necessary. We all face the serious problem of how to ensure supplies of food and raw materials. These raw materials are absolutely essential. Many of them may be in short supply in the years to come. I doubt whether, through separate companies or firms, we can take the long-term view which is now necessary. We ought to safeguard the interests of the country by putting these powers in the hands of the Board.

Mr. Summers: When we have debated various aspects of the problems affecting steel in the past, I have found almost invariably that I have dissented from the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I may well find myself compelled to do that in future debates. Therefore, it is all the more agreeable now to find myself in complete agreement with the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) and the idea that is behind this Amendment. I do not know that I am necessarily wedded to the actual words that he proposes to achieve his object, but in essence I agree with the intention and I hope that the Minister will find some way to give effect to it.
It would seem wrong to place the responsibility upon the Board not merely for judging the use to which existing plant is put but for assessing the need and method adopted for the provision of additional plant, unless, equally, there is placed upon the Board the responsibility for ensuring that the raw materials for the new plant they wish to see created are made available to it. Unless the raw materials are there, expenditure on plant itself is not justified.
It might be thought that the mere addition of these words might relieve the industry itself of some of the proper responsibility it ought to shoulder for expenditure on raw materials because, by the mere use of those words it could be argued that the Government would step in and do for the industry what it ought


to be doing for itself. To those who fear that consequence I would point out that there are two provisions in this Clause which must be fulfilled before Government money can be spent under this Bill if it is amended in this way.
The first provision is that there must be a shortage. Secondly, the Board must have failed to get proper steps taken to remove that shortage. Only if both those conditions are fulfilled is it proper for Government money to be spent. I should like the Minister to take this matter seriously and to consider how best the situation can be dealt with. I hope that he will consider some way by which the element of partnership is provided for if any Government money is spent in the raw material field under this Clause as amended. Clearly, it would be much more convincing, both to the industry and the public, if any such development for which public funds were used were done in partnership with the industry itself, which is experienced in these matters, so that accountability for what is done would be placed not merely on the Government of the day, through the Board, but also upon the industry.
6.45 p.m.
I should like to correct one impression which the hon. Member for Edmonton gave which I do not think is justified. He gave the impression that recent increased interest in sources of raw materials was attributable solely to the pressure exerted on the industry by the Corporation during its term of office. I would suggest that the increased interest is almost exclusively due to the fact that the added capacity of the industry has to be serviced not by scrap, as in the past, but almost entirely by pig iron. That, in itself, has forced an interest to be taken in iron ore and other materials. That would not have been the case if the raw materials for increased capacity could come in part from additional scrap supplies. The fact that the raw materials are not readily available has caused the increased interest.
I hope that the Minister, whether or not he is able to accept the wording suggested. will look kindly on this Amendment.

Mr. Arthur Colegate: I should like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) in pressing the Minister to accept this Amendment, whether in this precise form

of words or in some other form. I think this is an occasion on which one might call attention to what has happened in the oil industry, and recall that the present Prime Minister in 1911 or 1912 took that important step in connection with the oil industry which has provided us with one of the most important raw materials for the British nation.
In the same way, anyone who is charged with the duty of interesting themselves in the iron and steel industry should take a similar forward view, having regard to what is likely to be the international situation about raw materials. More and more we have to face the fact that the powers that be, whether in the shape of a private company with Government participation or the Government themselves, are going to divide between them, as it were, the available raw materials in the world and in such proportions as they can get.
That is a field in which we think the Government are justified in helping individual firms. In that international field, we hope to take a leading part, and I think that, if these powers are taken by the Minister, by means of this Amendment or something similar, the Board will be performing one of the most important functions which it can perform to help the iron and steel industry to go ahead.

Mr. Robson Brown: I am in general sympathy with the Amendment, and, indeed, on Second Reading, I emphasised the great importance of the Board having the oversight of the raw material supplies of the industry, particularly iron ore. It has been emphasised more than once that iron ore is the most important of our raw material supplies. In fact, shortage of scrap supplies has necessitated the change from a 50 per cent. consumption of pig iron to a 60 per cent. consumption. This is a remarkable and dramatic change which necessitates an entirely new evaluation of our ore requirements. Our home ore requirements at present stand at 15 million tons, and it is anticipated that, if the five-year programme is implemented, we shall have to go up to a requirement of 20 million tons.
In dealing with the question of home ore supplies, I hope the Board will bear well and clearly in mind the necessity for some oversight of the development of orefields in a progressive way, and it


seems to me that their attention should be drawn to the desirability of central ore development and ore beneficiation in the Northampton ore-field.
Figures about foreign ore have been quoted reasonably accurately by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu), and the figures there show quite a startling increase. When we examine the international figures relating to steel production, the dramatic increases in the forecasts and the general increases in steel production in the world, we must realise that the race for iron ore deposits will increase in intensity in the next 5 or 10 years, and we must be satisfied that in this race Great Britain will not be left behind.
I sincerely hope that the Board will appreciate, and that the Minister will realise, that the Board should have some powers—not necessarily those indicated as the Amendment now stands, but some such positive and substantial powers—to encourage the development of iron orefields overseas and some power over the general supply position of other raw materials in short supply.
I hope also that, wherever possible, this development will be carried out so far as possible within the confines of the Dominions and Colonies themselves, so that such developments may bring general well-being to the whole British Commonwealth. I hope that, therefore, the Minister will find a form of words which will give to the Board that kind of power which seems to us to be really necessary.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I am delighted to support this Amendment and to find that it has found supporters on the other side of the Committee as well. A very prominent Member of the House used to say that, in this country, one began advocating a reform, but that it was nearly always between 20 and 25 years before it was accepted. Month after month, in this House in 1936 and 1937. I raised this issue, and the reason I raised it was that so many of my relatives were forced to leave Britain because of the economic situation in 1911 and 1912, and went to Australia.
In Australia, at Yampi Sound, there are some of the richest iron ore deposits in the world, and in Australia they have a method of regulating their legislation

on a State basis. In the State in which these iron ore deposits are to be found, it was decided that no Japanese company was to be allowed to exploit the iron ore deposits. However, we can always trust the legal people to get round anything of that kind, and a London finance company got round those difficulties by financing the iron ore development through the London company, with the result that boats travelled regularly between Yampi Sound and Japan right until the eve of the war.
Now, at last, it is recognised in this House that it is most important that we should safeguard our iron ore deposits throughout the Commonwealth. Here, we see the need for Commonwealth economic planning. There are in Canada rich iron ore deposits hardly yet tapped, but American finance companies are considering the exploitation of these deposits. The Canadians desire to co-operate with us to the maximum extent, but until now there has been very little support in this House for proposals of that kind.
The chief handicap of the Canadians is going to be coking coal. In North Staffordshire, in the bowels of the earth, there is the greatest source of coking coal in the world. Our supplies of coking coal in Durham and other parts of the country are beginning to be worked out, but preparations are now being made to sink new shafts so that we can extract from the North Staffordshire coalfield millions of tons per year of coking coal. Here, we have great possibilities, and that is why I am so pleased that we are receiving the wholehearted support of both sides of the Committee on this question, and that we are at last recognising the need to safeguard, within our own country and within the Commonwealth, all our raw material resources to keep us going.
The reason I am so concerned about this is that, in this country, in the main, we can live only by producing. It has taken a large number of people a long while to recognise that, but at last there is an increasing recognition of the fact that, unless we do something on the lines proposed here, our economic situation, serious as it is now, will be far more serious in a few years' time.
The Chase National Bank of America is to sink millions of dollars in Spain in order to safeguard American iron ore


supplies from that country, a fact that shows the necessity for a proposal of this kind being incorporated in this Bill, and also for every action being taken that can be taken to safeguard the iron ore needs of the steel industry, upon which this country so greatly depends.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: This is one of the most important issues that have been raised, and I am glad that it is being dealt with, like practically all the other matters discussed in Committee on this Bill, from an entirely objective and practical point of view, with everybody trying to arrange the most efficient organisation possible for the iron and steel industry.
As I understand, the purpose of this Amendment is to empower the Minister, on the recommendation of the Board, to undertake the development of raw material supplies both in Great Britain and overseas. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) said that the Bill gives no power to the Government to provide facilities for the development of raw materials. That is not correct. The very Clause which we are now discussing enabled the Minister on the recommendation of the Board to provide in Great Britain, though not overseas, additional production facilities for any of the activities set out in the Third Schedule, the first of which is the quarrying or mining of iron ore. Therefore, it is clear that this is already covered by the Bill.
Several hon. Members mentioned the question of coke. The definition of the production facilities which the Minister can provide under this Clause on the recommendation of the Board is set out in Clause 31, which refers specifically to carbonisation. It talks about
any incidental activity (and, in particular, any activity relating to carbonisation),
which includes, of course, the provision of coke ovens and other facilities for the production of coke.
Therefore it would appear that the provision of raw materials in Great Britain is already covered in a reasonably satisfactory manner by the Bill. The real issue is whether those powers should be extended to the development of overseas sources of supply.
I hope that the iron and steel industry will normally be able to obtain all the coke it requires from inside Great Britain.

It may happen, as it did some months ago, that relatively small quantities of coke may have to be imported in order to overcome a temporary shortage. But I think the Committee will agree that it is almost inconceivable that the iron and steel industry would ever wish to operate coal mines or construct coke ovens outside Great Britain.
The question of the production overseas of raw materials, as distinct from the purchase of foreign materials, really confines itself to the development of sources of supply of iron ore and other ore. As we all know, the industry depends to a great extent upon supplies of high grade iron ore from abroad, and I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Edmonton that this is one of the most vital problems which will confront the iron and steel industry in the years ahead.
The industry has already many important contracts for the supply of iron ore from countries in almost all parts of the world. The main sources of supply are Sweden, French North Africa, Spain, Newfoundland and Sierra Leone. There are, of course, lesser sources of supply in other parts of the world. In one or two cases the British steel industry itself is participating in mining operations overseas and in the survey of mineral resources preparatory to development.
I believe that the extensive arrangements which on its own initiative the industry is making should be sufficient to keep pace with the growing demands of our expanding steel-making capacity. There is no reason to suppose that the Government could improve on the plans which the industry is now making.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) stressed the importance of the Government not only acting alone, but also participating with the industry in developing these raw material resources. I agree with him that the more the industry does and the less left to the Government, the better. However, should the need arise, we would certainly not be opposed to Government participation in the development of raw material supplies overseas. The Government's attitude towards the Volta River aluminium scheme is sufficient proof of that.
As the Bill stands, the Board can, of course, discuss with the industry the problems of overseas ore supplies and concern


itself actively with the whole of this problem. Although the Bill does not specifically say so, there can be no possible doubt that the Board is perfectly free to make any recommendations to the Government which are in the interest of the industry. Such recommendations can, of course, include recommendations relating to the necessity for overseas development of raw materials.
The effect of this Amendment would be to give the Government power to participate in the overseas development of raw materials if so recommended by the Board. This would not, as one or two hon. Members pointed out, give a blank cheque to the Government or entitle it to incur expenditure on overseas raw material development without Parliamentary approval. Any money that was required for these purposes would have to be voted by Parliament in the usual way.
There is really no difference of principle between us on this issue. The only reason why, after some reflection, we did not include this power in the Bill was that we thought that it might be better to wait until an actual case arose where Government assistance was needed for overseas development of raw materials for the industry. The Government could then bring definite proposals for a specific scheme before the House of Commons.
Without wishing to introduce any note of controversy into our steel debates— which is the last thing in the world I would want to do—I must confess that I was a little hesitant about asking Parliament to approve the principle of more overseas development by the State, having regard to recent experience which, to put it in the most inoffensive way that I can, have not been universally fortunate.

Mr. Ellis Smith: That is no analogy whatever.

Mr. Sandys: I must admit, however, that after listening to this debate my hesitations have been dispelled by the general support which the principle of this Amendment has received from both sides of the Committee.
In the form in which this Amendment has been drafted it would not achieve the purpose which the hon. Member for Edmonton has in mind. It would give the Government power to provide facili-

ties for overseas development, but only within the definition of production facilities in Clause 31 of this Bill. That is to say, the Government could provide premises, plant and machinery. I am advised that the Amendment would probably not give the Government the right to spend money on the acquisition of land, mineral rights, port facilities and rail and sea transport. As I think hon. Members will agree, all those things might well be necessary to develop overseas raw material supplies. I would therefore ask the hon. Member for Edmonton to withdraw his Amendment. If he will do so, I, for my part, will introduce an Amendment on the Report stage to give effect to the substance of this proposal.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: We are very glad that the Minister has taken this line. We felt very keenly about this matter as we believed that the inability, or lack of power, of the Board to provide raw materials if necessary from overseas for the iron and steel industry was one of the major deficiencies of the structure of the industry as set out in this Bill. We therefore moved this Amendment on which we place great importance.
I am glad there was a revolt of the Conservative back benchers on this matter, a revolt of those who agree with us that the Bill is deficient in this way and who support the suggestions which we put forward that it should be so amended. As I have said before to the Committee, I think that all our Amendments are reasonable and deserve the support of intelligent people but it is only now and again that we get hon. Members on the other side of the Committee to take that view. I can assure them that we have other Amendments even more important than this which deserve their support as much as this one does.
We are grateful to the Minister for explaining matters so fully, although we are amazed at the arguments which he put forward for hesitating to come to the House of Commons earlier with this essential power for the Board. But in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said and his recognition that this matter is important, and the recognition on this side of the Committee—though I do not think on his part—that there have


been some deficiencies in the past on the part of the iron and steel industry in not having been forward-looking enough in this matter and in view of his agreement to the need for some body outside the industry—the Minister himself, if necessary—taking powers to ensure that the industry has sufficient raw materials with which to fulfil the production quotas required by the economy of this country, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton will wish to withdraw the Amendment. We shall wait with interest to see the same idea incorporated in the more effective and technically better form which the right hon. Gentleman says he will present, presumably on the Report stage.

Mr. Albu: I am not a Parliamentary draftsman and I do not know whether the alteration of the words "production facilities" to "facilities of production "might make a difference. We are very grateful to the Minister. This very short debate on the Amendment has very clearly demonstrated the very strong feeling that exists that there is a need to safeguard our raw material supplies for the future. Since I have been a Member of the House of Commons, I do not think I have known such a quick take-up of a very serious point made in a debate, and I am very glad that the Minister has agreed to bring forward an Amendment on the next stage of the Bill. In those circumstances. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): Perhaps the Committee will take the Amendment to page 4, line 10 and the Amendment following it, in page 5. line 11, together.

Mr. Ian Winterbottom: I beg to move, in page 5, line 10, to leave out "himself," and to insert "direct the Board to."
Before I speak on this Amendment, Mr. Hopkin Morris, perhaps you would like to extend your Ruling on the Amendments that are to be taken together. It might be for the convenience of the Committee if we took with this Amendment the Amendments in page 5. line 11, after "or," insert "to"; in line 13, leave out "Minister," and insert "Board"; in line 18, leave out "himself," and insert "direct the Board to";

in line 21, leave out "Minister," and insert "Board "; and in line 24, leave out "Minister," and insert Board."

The Deputy-Chairman: Yes, if the Committee agree with that proposal I think that they might very well be taken together.

Mr. Winterbottom: It is perhaps wise to enable us to take all these Amendments together because it enables me, in moving my Amendment and in speaking on this group of Amendments, to tie up a series of inter-linked points and to clear up the one point which I want to make. I will read for the benefit of the Committee the two subsections of Clause 4, which are affected, as they now stand and in the form in which they will appear if the Amendments are adopted. Page 5, line 10 of subsection (2) of the Bill reads as follows:
the Minister may, with the approval of the Treasury, himself provide and use those facilities, or make arrangements with any persons for the provision or use of those facilities by those persons, whether as agents for the Minister or otherwise.
As amended, it will read:
the Minister may, with the approval of the Treasury, direct the Board to provide and use those facilities, or make arrangements with any persons for the provision or use of those facilities by those persons, whether as agents for the Board or otherwise.
Subsection (3) similarly substitutes the word "Board" for "Minister."
The intention of Clause 4 is that if the Minister finds that additional production facilities are required by the steel industry which the industry itself is unwilling to provide, he can himself provide those facilities: or. alternatively, if, in the opinion of the industry, it is desirable to close down certain existing facilities which the Minister, for social or other reasons, may think it desirable to keep in existence, then he may take over from private industry and keep these additional existing facilities functioning.
Having reached this decision he will then himself use these facilities and
acquire or take on lease, and use, those facilities or make arrangements with any persons for securing the use of those facilities by those persons, whether as agents for the Minister or otherwise.
That is the purpose of the Clause as drafted.
It is the intention of my hon. Friends and myself to amend the Clause so that


not the Minister but the Iron and Steel Board become responsible for those sections of the steel industry which the industry itself, for whatever reasons, is unwilling to operate. I think this is rather an important point, and the Minister would be wise to look at the administrative set-up that he is creating by the Bill as it stands.
The picture is a strange one. First, after a time we shall have the Iron and Steel Board supervising the most modern and commercially desirable section of the industry. Secondly, for many years to come we shall have the Holding and Realisation Agency running the other half of the industry—that section which is technically backward and which does not meet a ready response from the market when it tries to sell. In addition, the Minister may himself be administering and supervising certain marginal steel plants which the industry itself feels either in excess of normal production or so out-of-date that they are no longer a commercial proposition to keep in running order.
We have here three separate sections of the steel industry responsible to three different heads and supervised by those three different heads. I think the Minister will agree that divided responsibility is always bad because it tends to lead to confusion. Two-headed monsters always tend to get in a bit of a mess. Some may remember the Two-headed terrapin in the New York Zoo, which always quarrelled with itself at mealtimes. The organisation which the Minister is proposing to create in the Bill is even worse than that, because it is a three-headed organisation and there is bound to be collision, overlapping and confusion when the industry has to look to three separate heads for instructions and orders.
It is the opinion of my hon. Friends and myself that the Minister would be far wiser to avoid entering into the field of production in the steel industry, particularly into competitive production with existing firms, with a group of firms which he has been forced to take under his supervision and control because the general body of the industry feels that these sections of the industry are not competitive and cannot be handled in a normal commercial way.
The Minister may argue that his Department is quite capable of undertaking the supervision of a section of the steel industry. He may argue that his Department has considerable experience of manufacturing matters. It does, after all, run the ordnance factories, tank factories, and so on. But I think the Committee will agree that there is a great deal of difference between the articles which he produces and the production of steel under normal commercial competitive conditions.
The types of things that are produced by the Ministry of Supply are, on the whole, non-economic articles. They are either tanks which are produced for a specific purpose, or shells which have no normal commercial value. They are purely artificial by-products for the defence programme, and they are entirely different in their nature from the commercial production of steel which the Minister at the moment proposes to undertake.
There is another point that is worthy of consideration. Many of us feel that his Ministry is, in any case, much too big. The Parliamentary Secretary and I on one occasion served on a subcommittee of the Select Committee on Estimates which studied his Ministry. I think that as a result of our work we had produced for us one of the first administrative charts for the Ministry of Supply, and I have brought the "Christmas tree" with me here. Without turning for help behind him, can the Minister possibly tell the Committee how many departments, headed by an undersecretary, director-general, principal director or civil servant of similar rank. he has in his Department? Can he possibly tell the Committee how many he has got? I am not surprised that he cannot. It is, perhaps, a somewhat unfair question, because I have the answer in front of me and he has not.
In October, 1950, he or his predecessor had 30 departments under under-secretaries or the equivalent. He may have hived off one or two of those departments, but there is about that number of sections in his Ministry at the moment. He is responsible for such things as the whole production of atomic energy in the country, the production of guided missiles, a great range of artillery and ordnance stores, aircraft production and a number of other activitles.

Mr. A. J. Champion: What does he do with his spare time?

Mr. Winterbottom: That is the point. My hon. Friends and I feel that he has no spare time to divert to the business of manufacturing steel under competitive conditions. I think it has been said that the limiting factor to the size of any Ministry is the capacity of the Minister and his permanent secretary to pass paper backwards and forwards to each other over the desk, and, we hope, in the process to digest and assimilate its contents. We feel that the Ministry of Supply has, in fact, reached its limit in size. The work taken on by the Ministry cannot be increased if it is to be done efficiently, and the Ministry of Supply should not attempt to take on any further work.
7.30 p.m.
In our opinion it would be far better if those sections of the industry which the Minister, after consultation with the industry, may decide to take under his supervision and control were placed under the Iron and Steel Board instead of under the Ministry of Supply. As the Bill now stands he is not precluded from taking this course. Under Clause 4 (3) the Minister
… may … acquire or take on lease, and use, those facilities or make arrangements with any persons for securing the use of those facilities by those persons, whether as agents for the Minister or otherwise.
The Minister could, in fact, appoint the Iron and Steel Board as his agents.
He should not forget that those sections of the iron and steel industry which he proposes to take over at the moment will be the problem children of that industry. They will be those sections of the industry which are, from their nature—either due to obsolescence or because they were set up for purely strategic reasons not really economically viable. For this reason they would be difficult to run and difficult to operate commercially in competition with the existing private industry and they would provide the Minister with many severe headaches in the House. He would be wise to place a buffer between himself and the House by giving the Iron and Steel Board responsibility for supervising these marginal sections of the steel industry.
A further advantage of the arrangement we propose is that the Board would have

power to call upon the whole of the iron and steel industry for advice, technical assistance, and so on, because in its day-to-day work it would be in contact with every section of the industry. From its very nature it would have great advantages which would not be possessed by the Minister—by keeping in contact with the rest of the industry, working out with the various related firms the problems raised by these marginal steel mills, and producing a solution to the problems of the industry without interference from Parliament or any other source which might question the Minister's handling of the problem children of the industry.
I would urge the Minister to accept this group of Amendments or at least to indicate that the Board may very well be his agents in this matter, and in this manner simplify the machinery of supervision of the steel industry which, as designed by him in the Bill, is so extremely complicated.

Mr. William Shepherd: The hon. Member for Nottingham, Central (Mr. Ian Winterbottom) has moved his Amendment very agreeably, and he might have thought that he would be as successful as his predecessor; but I hope this will not prove to be the case, because he has ignored the most important issue of principle which is raised by his Amendment.
I do not agree for one moment with the premise on which he has based his case. I do not think that the Realisation Agency will be left with such a preponderance in the steel industry, and I should not like to say that the first items to be sold would be the recently created and heavily capitalised undertakings of a few years ago. We all agree that the Minister of Supply is a monster. I once described a previous Minister of Supply as "the bull-frog of the Thames Embankment," and there is no doubt that this Ministry has grown to an inordinate size.
If there were no other considerations than that the hon. Gentleman might have an argument; but there is one very important consideration to which I draw the Committee's attention. Here we are establishing a supervisory Board. I admit that this is a question of divergence of principle. We take the view that we should have private owner-


ship with public supervision, and we regard the segregation of those elements as being vital to the success of the industry.
The difficulty of the hon. Gentleman's proposal is that this supervisory Board would be drawn into the iron and steel business in an owning and operating capacity. Once that were done, it would vitiate the whole principle on which this Bill stands. The Board could not carry out its duties as a supervisory Board as satisfactorily if it owned property and managed units as if it had no such association with the industry. While I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the activities of the Minister should not be enlarged unnecessarily, there is the greater danger that we shall do damage to the concept of a supervisory Board.
We must ensure that the word of the Board is accepted by the firms in the industry and it must be felt by them that the Board has no interest other than the public interest. If it takes over part of the industry itself, it will be creating an interest which may be other than the public interest. It must be admitted that if one is engaged in the actual business of an industry, one cannot take the detached view that one can if one has no actual managerial commitment.
That is the main reason I hope my right hon. Friend will tell the Committee that he is not prepared to accept this Amendment, much as I regret the fact that this may result in an increase in the activities of the Minister of Supply.

Mr. Sandys: I am surprised that no hon. Member opposite has risen to support this important Amendment. The hon. Member for Nottingham, Central (Mr. Ian Winterbottom) has stated the case fairly and in a balanced way. As the Bill stands at present the Government are empowered, if the need should arise, to provide additional facilities for the production of iron and steel within the definition of the Bill. They have the right and power to provide those facilities themselves—to erect works and either to be responsible directly for the running of those works or to make an arrangement with some company to run the works on an agency basis or in some other way. If this Amendment were adopted, the Government would have to direct the Board to provide any additional facilities which were required and would no

longer have the right to do so themselves.
The issue is quite clear. if the Government decide that it is desirable in the national interest to expand the capacity of the industry beyond the point which the industry itself considers to be economic, the question is, who is to be responsible for building the new works and for runing them? Is it to be the Board or the Government?
The hon. Member for Nottingham, Central said that the Ministry of Supply was so big that it really could not take on any more work. I entirely agree with him. But I hope that, when this Bill becomes law, I shall have much less detailed work to do in connection with the steel industry. I shall still have the general governmental responsibility, but I hope that a great deal of the detailed work in connection with raw materials and price control will, to some extent at any rate, be taken off my shoulders. I can assure hon. Gentlemen that this will be very welcome.
The hon. Gentleman also said that the Ministry of Supply were a most unsuitable body to own and run steel works because they had not the necessary knowledge or experience. At the time when he was examining the organisation of the Ministry of Supply so thoroughly. they were, in fact, the owners of a number of steel works and were responsible for running them on an agency basis.

Mr. Jack Jones: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to mislead the House. He is not suggesting, surely, that the Ministry of Supply, as such, directly owned and controlled the various works which come within its orbit. Is it not a fact that the Ministry of Supply appointed as their agents, in the case of Barrow, for instance, the United Steel Companies, physically to run the works? Is it not a fact that Ministry of Supply officials as such did not enter the picture as managing directors at all? I am certain the right hon. Gentleman would not want to mislead the House into believing that at the time of this examination the Ministry physically owned and physically ran these companies such as the works in Barrow.

Mr. Sandys: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I was saying, he would have heard me say that we were


responsible for the running of these works on an agency basis. That is what I said, and I think his hon. Friend heard me say it. The arrangement was precisely that which the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) has explained in detail. It does not follow, however, that, because the Government found it necessary to assume responsibility for providing additional production facilities, they would necessarily have to do it in any different way. The most natural and, I think, the most satisfactory way is for the Government to do it on an agency basis.
Nevertheless, I am not suggesting that we should welcome the idea of the Government becoming the owner and manager of steel works. That is certainly not our desire but we have to provide for these eventualities in the Bill.

Mr. Jones: I dislike interrupting the right hon. Gentleman again, but this is a most important issue and we ought to get it right. Are the Committee being told that, as a result of negotiation with the present or potential owners, the latter having failed to provide the necessary extension to production facilities, the State would proceed to build a steel works and then would hand it over to an agency consisting of the very people who had refused to provide the extension or expansion which would have obviated the need for the new works? Would the works owned by the State be handed over to these people as Government agents?

Mr. Sandys: Which people?

Mr. Jones: Those who are at the moment in the steel industry and are capable of running a steel works.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: I am not trying to prejudge exactly how this will be done. We have to provide in the Bill for various possible ways in which these works can be run. They may be run as an ordnance factory or as an agency factory or in various other ways, and I am sure the right thing is to consider each case as it arises. I am not trying to pre-judge how such a case would be handled, but I can assure the Committee that, in framing the Bill, we considered very carefully indeed the possibility of adopting the alternative course suggested in the Amendment, namely, that the

responsibility for providing such additional facilities would be placed not upon the Government but upon the Board.
I must say that at first sight the proposal has its attractions, particularly for hon. Members on this side of the Committee, who are not fond of the Government entering industry more than is absolutely necessary. However, we felt unable to accept the proposal for two main reasons. The first is that we consider that the new Board should be a high-level, policymaking body and should not become involved in the responsibilities of management. The second reason is that, in our opinion, it is most undesirable that the Board should own and run steel works in competition with other companies in the industry.
On issues such as prices, development and perhaps also raw materials, the interests of the various companies will not necessarily always be identical. The Board, we feel, might find itself in a most invidious position if it were the owner of one or two, or even three steel companies and, in consequence, had a special interest in the prosperity and success of those firms. We feel that this would inevitably impair the position of the Board as an impartial arbiter and superviser over the industry as a whole.
For those reasons, we came to the conclusion, after very carefully considering the proposals advanced in the Amendment, that it was inappropriate and undesirable for the Board to own and run steel works and that, in the circumstances, it was preferable to place this responsibility upon the Government. I hope hon. Members will recognise the validity of the considerations I have mentioned and will not press the Amendment.

Mr. Jack Jones: The case put forward by the Minister is one with which we completely disagree. It is not, however, our intention to divide the Committee at this stage; we want to save as much time as possible, because there are important matters to discuss. Nevertheless, we are greatly concerned about the suggestion that, in the event of the Minister having to provide State money for additional facilities, the new facilities will be handed over to management by the very people who were the cause of those additional facilities having to be created.


We express a hope that before the Report stage the Minister will have a careful look at this matter, and we also hope that he will assure the Committee that some alternative proposal will be brought before the House. It seems to me to be an appalling state of affairs that those who are the cause of the building of the additional facilities—for those facilities would not be necessary if they extended and expanded existing facilities—are the very people who will be called upon to manage them. As I have said, we do not intend to divide the Committee, because we have other important matters to discuss, but we are dissatisfied with the situation. I know that the Minister will take heed of what has been said and will have a further look at the proposals.
Amendment negatived.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: I beg to move, in page 5, line 15, after "Board," to insert:
that any existing production facilities are being used in an inefficient or uneconomic manner or.
I think it can be said that quite a number of our Amendments to this Clause bear a certain family resemblance to each other in the sense that they do seek to extend always the area of public control, and I think that that is quite natural because, after all, this Clause is concerned with the development of the iron and steel industry in a very real fashion, and here, if anywhere, are to be found the positive powers possessed by this Board. But at the moment I think we can say on this side of the Committee that we have to look very closely indeed to find these positive powers of the Board as contained in the Clause.
Since I am anxious to save time, I think I can sum up the existing powers shortly in this way. If we look at the Clause and examine the powers, we find them to be first of all the power to compel consultation with the Minister on the development plans of the industry by the industry itself; and the second power, which is one rather different, is the reserve power of development by the Minister himself if the industry as such will not act—and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central (Mr. Ian Winterbottom) just now did deal critically with a certain aspect of that matter in some detail.
The Amendment is concerned with the second—this reserve power of development. If we look at subsection (3) of the Clause as it stands, we find that the Minister has the right to take over and to operate any existing production facilities which might otherwise be closed down, and the Amendment seeks logically —as we see it—to extend this right to bring into it existing production facilities being at the moment inefficiently or uneconomically used. I used the word "logically." I do feel this is logical reasoning from the premise already in the Bill, because, after all, if production facilities are wholly shut down, that is taking the principle to the ultimate degree. We are concerned at the moment with the half-way case, where production facilities are being incompletely used or even misused. We want the Minister to have the right of intervention in a case of that kind in the public interest.
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends that there is really no sacrifice of principle involved here on their part. I cannot see that there is anything in this fairly moderate wording and its effect that is likely to inflame the tender pride in private enterprise and the scruples of the party opposite. We know that the Conservative Party do object as a point of doctrine to what to us is a very excellent principle, that the community should, through its chosen instruments, exercise control. They say the State should just hold the ring. It is our contention that that very often amounts to leaving the State with the baby. But no doctrine is involved in this instance. If I were to continue my line of reasoning, it could be said that we do not complain here that the Bill has been born ugly and misshapen. because we wish the Bill had not been born at all.
So accepting the nature of the Bill, and the assumption that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side are bound to make, I think—the suggestion as now put forward in this Amendment, which is accepting the assumption contained in the Bill—can the powers in it be improved? I think they can be improved, as I say, without any sacrifice of principle at all by the party opposite. If the words which we suggest are inserted in the appropriate place, the effect will be to ensure that, after evidence is given to the Board that existing production facilities are being inefficiently or uneconomic-


ally run, then the Minister may take over and improve those facilities, either directly or through an agent. It merely to extend the principle which already contained in the Clause—to extend it further to include uneconomic of inefficient operation of existing production facilities.
I commend this Amendment—I think it is a most reasonable one—to the right hon. Gentleman and to the party opposite. It would add another reserve power, but a very excellent power in the public interest.

Mr. George Darling: I should like to support the Amendment. In my view, it goes to the root of many of the troubles and weaknesses and deficiencies not only in the steel industry but generally in British industry. I think we are all agreed that if Britain is to pay her way in the world and be economically independent, and provide ever-improving standards of living for our people, our industries must become more efficient; we must have greater production—in many industries from fewer workers—we must have greater productivity all round.
That is the best way of saying that we want our industries to be run in the national interest. The output of each worker in most of our industries must be increased and the costs of production must come down. In other words, our industries must be more efficient. There are many people who subscribe to that point of view—because it is quite obvious, and, as I say, all of us agree with it—but who tend to lay the blame for the relatively low productivity in our industries on the workers, and the trade unions. Usually, they do not know what they are talking about, because it is not the trade unions that have created the industrial climate of this country. They have had to adjust themselves to it.
The industrial climate has been created by the industrial leaders who, for generations, in the steel industry and in other industries, have been operating with restrictive practices, with private cartels, with price-fixing agreements, with their trade associations, quota agreements, and all the paraphernalia of monopoly which has grown up in British industry and is making it impossible for it to be as productive as it ought to be.

It is, in fact, the industrialists themselves who have tended to take competitive conditions out of British industry.
However, I do not want to go over the discussions we have had before on Amendments we have already discussed today, except to say that the attack upon the idea of free competition which came from the Parliamentary Secretary will give us a great deal of satisfaction before we have finished with this Bill. Of course, he was quite right.
The steel industry is by no means the worst offender in this business of taking competition out of industry, of sheltering inefficiency behind price rings and trade associations and restrictive practices, and the rest of it. The steel industry is better than most, but we have to take note of the fact that when this Bill has been passed, when the British Iron and Steel Corporation has been sacked, it will be the Iron and Steel Federation which will be again in effective control of the industry, because the supervising Board, as we have noted in all the debates so far in this Committee, will have no real authority and no real control over the industry. There is the danger that the Federation will work again as it has worked in the past—hesitating when it ought to be courageous, and marking time when it ought to be going ahead.
8.0 p.m.
We on this side of the Committee believe that private ownership of steel without effective public control is particularly dangerous, because, unless there is to be real public control, the half dozen or so big steel firms will again be in charge of the Federation and, therefore, in control of the industry so that it will be run in the way that those big firms want it to be run, in their own interests and not in the interests of the community. Indeed, "The Times "pointed out in 1948 that we were probably right in our discussions on the steel industry to assume that competitive conditions could not return to it even though it went back to private ownership.
Therefore, we say that the Board ought to be in a position to correct all weakness and remove all inefficiency which we think will arise when again the Steel Federation, Steel House, and the big firms are again in control of the industry. The Federation has never existed and cannot exist to foster competition and the


enterprise that hon. Members opposite talk so much about and which they expect to come through this Bill. The Federation is necessarily restrictive in character. It must keep enterprise within the bounds of the conditions which the big firms and the Federation want to lay down. The whole purpose will be to make things easy for the average, or less than average, firms.
We agree with hon. Members opposite when they say that free competition can be a spur to enterprise, efficiency and progress. But there are two very good reasons, one of which was mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary, why there cannot be true competition and free competition in this industry. For one thing the technical set-up today makes it impossible. Large-scale enterprises will be needed, and large-scale enterprises in some sections of the steel industry will be so large within the next few years that it will be impossible to have competitive conditions. 1t may be that in one section one plant alone will be sufficient to provide the country with all that is wanted of that particular product, and for that reason there cannot be the spur to production from free competition which hon. Members opposite want. The other reason is the one I have already given, that, through the Federation taking control, competition in the industry will be limited in the interest of the big firms.
In these circumstances, we believe that some other body ought to provide the spur to efficiency which will make the industry progress and be enterprising and adventurous. We think that spur should be provided by the Board itself. It ought to have the right, the authority and the power to step in and deal with any section of the industry where inefficiency shows itself and, in the terms of the Amendment, deal with the situation that arises when any existing production facilities are being used in an inefficient or unproductive manner.

Mr. Low: I am glad to join with the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) and the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) in attaching importance to efficiency. It is our view that the Board has the duty, among other things, to look to the efficiency of supply, and to help in that matter. Other sources of efficiency that we look to include the competitive conditions which the hon. Member for

Hillsborough found himself referring to, quite naturally, without realising that he was agreeing with very much that we have said. I ought to say that he appears to have misinterpreted some of the things that I said this afternoon on an earlier Amendment, but I do not think that I ought to go back to that even though he entices me to do so.
This Amendment, as the hon. Member for Cleveland explained to us very clearly, would provide, on the assumption that there are no powers in the Bill of compulsory acquisition, that the Minister, under agreement with the company concerned, could take over its works on the grounds that they were being run inefficiently or uneconomically. We are going to ask the Committee to resist the Amendment for two reasons.
First, what is the real test of the efficient and economic running of a works? It is true that opinions can be formed on this matter. The Minister, through the Board, could well have an opinion, but are those opinions as good as the facts? If prices are competitive or if there is no competition in price but a maximum price has been fixed on the basis of efficient production, so that the Board will ensure that the conditions in the industry stimulate efficiency, surely the test of inefficiency is that there will be a loss by the company instead of a profit. In other words, the evidence of inefficiency will be the evidence that the plant is being run uneconomically.
This will be shown in the accounts and the first thing that will happen will be the shareholders will want to replace the directors. If this fails to restore efficiency, it may be that the true cause of the uneconomic running of the plant is the antiquated type of plant or its location, and it may then be that it will have to close down.

Mr. Palmer: That argument rationally applies to a case visualised in the Bill, as drafted, where a plant shuts down completely. If the hon. Member is arguing that the directors are the best judges of that when it is really a question of inefficiency, what about the case where they think that the plant is so inefficient that it has not to be run at all?

Mr. Low: If I could develop my argument it would be found that the Bill as drafted meets the point put by the hon.


Member. I think he will find that the results from the Bill as it stands are exactly the same as those he seeks to achieve.
Once a plant is closed down or is likely to be closed down—that is the effect of the words in the Bill—the Minister's powers under this subsection then become available without any Amendment being necessary at all. During all this time the Board may well be in consultation with the producer concerned. It will have seen the annual accounts, and if these show a loss it may be aware from this or other sources of information that the plant is being run inefficiently. It will have an opportunity of using its influence to improve efficiency in the running of the plant.
Not only will the Board have had that opportunity, but so will the shareholders, and if the Board finds that the company is going to close a plant down there will be plenty of opportunities to consider the matter. In the end there is, as I have said, the Minister's powers, which become available under the subsection as drafted. Once that stage is reached, I do not think that it is likely that the company concerned, if it is finding that the plant is losing money, would refuse to sell the plant and would prefer to scrap it. I do not think that that is a possibility which we need entertain.
So it would appear that not only is the test which we are asked to adopt by the Amendment the test being the opinion of the Minister or the Board— the least good of the tests available, but the Amendment is really unnecessary to achieve the results which its mover desires. For these reasons, I suggest that the Committee should resist the Amendment.

Mr. Frederick Lee: The difficulty m moving an Amendment to this subsection is that the subsection itself is a complete anomaly. What the Minister seeks to do is to ensure that if he is unable to sell plant which has quite a good use value he shall, by a backdoor method, attempt to keep that- plant in use, if, to quote the words of the subsection,
 … it appears to the Minister, after consultation with the Board, that any existing production facilities in Great Britain which would not otherwise be kept in use ought in the national interest to be kept in use….

The whole Bill is exposed as being entirely against the national interest, as these firms can be kept in use without this Bill. The Minister knows that under the provisions of the Bill there is the possibility that he cannot sell quite a number of economic units, and, therefore, he has to find some device for keeping them in use.
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to look at this matter from another. angle. I think that both sides of the Committee are aware that because of the difference of opinion between the parties as to whether this industry should remain nationalised or be denationalised many former steel owners may well hesitate before they again take up holdings in the industry. They may contemplate that, even within a short time, they may again be faced with nationalisation, and it would, therefore, seem to us that many of the people who will, in fact, buy part of this industry will not be bona fide steel men, but speculators who will be gambling on buying a part of the industry and being able to dispose of it within a reasonably short time.
If that is so, I should have thought that the Amendment becomes of even greater importance than if the industry were to remain in the hands of the steel men who understand it. If we are to have a position in which speculators have taken over parts of the industry and then find themselves unable to dispose of them, I should have thought that it was highly probable that we should come across the position which this Amendment envisages and that existing production facilities would not be used in an efficient or economic way. For that reason, I should have thought that in their own interests the Government would accept, or at least give very careful consideration to, the Amendment which we are now proposing.
8.15 p.m.
We have had discussions on other Amendments and on the Second Reading about the job which the steel industry now has to do. We were all very pleased to see the exceptionally high level of steel production which the nationalised steel industry accomplished last month, even with the threat of this Bill hanging over it. But even that high level of 18 million tons cannot be sufficiently high if we are to expand the steel consuming


interests in the way in which we are all desirous of expanding them. Indeed, the figure of some 20 million tons has been mentioned from time to time in the Committee as being the objective at which we should aim for production in the steel industry.
What will the people in the consuming industries feel if they are asked to increase their consumption of steel, if engineering and shipbuilding industries are to expand, if employers are to put in their capital, and employees to give their labour? How will they feel if there is no guarantee that even the existing plant in the industry can be properly utilised to ensure that even the present level of steel production will be available to them in the future?
I should have thought that in the interests of the steel consumers many hon. Members opposite would be now feeling extremely uncomfortable in realising that their own Government will not take over powers which are elementary to any organisation which desires to get maximum production even from the steel industry as it now is.
The Parliamentary Secretary told us that the Government rely on competition. After the disquiet expressed, to which we on this side of the Committee remained passive spectators, on an earlier Amendment, when we heard an interesting description from the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) of what competition really is, I should have thought that the Parliamentary Secretary would have taken a lot of tempting before talking any more about competition.
If we are to get the output which both the Government, ourselves and the steel consumers require, surely this is not an Amendment which should be treated so lightly as the Government are now treating it. I should have thought that they would have sought to bring unity into these interests, which must be now very worried indeed about the future, and be feeling that they have seen that the party opposite cannot make up its mind whether it wants competition or whether it does not. They are now to be confronted with the spectacle of the Government refusing to ensure not only that an enlarged steel industry should be doing its job but that even the present units in

the steel industry should be compelled to do their job. How can they have confidence in the Government or in a Bill of this sort being able to assure them the steel which is so necessary to them?
I know that the Minister is persevering and likes to go into details on these matters. I hope that he will not continue his present attitude, which seems to us to be one of saying to the people whom he wants to buy his steel industry, "We will promise you now, before you put your money down, that even if you are the most crassly inefficient person in the whole industry we will not interfere with you unnecessarily?" If he adopts that attitude he will frighten the steel consumers.
I hope, therefore, that he will accept this Amendment or at least say that he will look at the question again. It is important that there should be confidence in the steel consuming industry. The spectacle of the Government refusing to accept an Amendment like this is calculated to have precisely the opposite effect.
Amendment negatived.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: I beg to move, in page 5. line 18, after "acquire," to insert:
(by the acquisition of shares or otherwise).

The Temporary Chairman: It might be for the convenience of the Committee also to discuss the Amendment in page 5, line 21, at the end, insert;
Provided that under this subsection the Board may compulsorily acquire or compulsorily take on lease facilities and in such a case the compensation or rent to be paid by the Board shall in default of agreement he determined by arbitration.

Mr. Winterbottom: Thank you, Mr. Thomas. I am sure the Minister will agree that the power of acquisition is very important and that it is essential that the matter should be thoroughly discussed. I am sure he will also agree, because the Parliamentary Secretary has already used words to the same effect, with a trade journal which described Clause 4 as containing the positive powers of the Minister and of the Board to deal with the development of the industry from a national point of view. That will probably be the limit of our agreement on the issue. It is the opinion of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself that the so-called positive powers under the Clause are not enough. There is too much "may I, please?" and


not enough "I can do" for the Clause to be as effective as it ought to be in the national interest.
Our purpose is to free the Clause from ambiguity in relation to acquisition and clearly to define, without any qualification, the power of the Minister and the Board to acquire premises, plant or equipment when it is in the national interest to do so. Under the Clause as drafted, such acquisition can take place only if the owners agree to the Minister doing so from the point of view of development or because a business may otherwise fall into decay. That is not good enough.
I have great respect for the person whose name I am about to mention, for he was a vivid personality and a very honourable Member of this house. The Clause reminds us too much of his beliefs. It is too much like the last will and testament of the late Sir Andrew Duncan, for, by modern interpretation, it means that the national interest shall be determined by Steel House and by the Federation irrespective of the conclusions reached by the Minister and the Board.

Mr. P. Roberts: It appears to me that the Amendment only means that the Board can acquire by means of "shares or otherwise," and that, if there is a dispute, there shall be arbitration. I find it difficult to follow the hon. Member's argument. I should have thought that, on the face of it, his Amendment might have been reasonable if by "acquire" he meant "acquire by shares."

Mr. Winterbottom: We go further than that. The acquisition of shares can be done on the basis of negotiation and by agreement, but we say that when agreement which is in the national interest cannot be obtained, the Minister and the Board shall have power to acquire compulsorily.
When the Bill becomes law, the industry may not willingly or voluntarily carry out developments in accordance with the national interest, and it may also be that premises, plant or equipment may be closed down even though it is in the national interest that they should continue to operate. The Clause does not compel development or continuity of operation, even if the Minister and the Board desire those things. If agreement is withheld—I can think of many excuses that owners might have for withholding

agreement—the Minister and the Board will be powerless.
8.30 p.m.
Much has been said about private enterprise. The Minister's sacred gospel of private enterprise is not too pure and holy even in the private enterprise world. There is at least one precedent for powers to dispossess in relation to a major industry. The closest analogy that I can find to the issue that we are now discussing occurs in agriculture, which is probably the last ditch of private enterprise. If a farmer is not cultivating his land properly he can be evicted, and the real test of whether he shall continue to till his land or be evicted is the same test as that for which I am now arguing —whether or not he is doing it rightly or wrongly in the national interest. If he is doing it wrongly, then sanctions are imposed.
Those sanctions are imposed in the agricultural industry, which is almost wholly one of private enterprise. If they are imposed in agriculture, why not in the iron and steel industry? Why not take things to their logical conclusion? The power is not misused in the case of agriculture, there are very few cases of eviction; and I do not think that in the case of iron and steel there would be many instances. Indeed, with the present Government in power and with the present Minister in charge, it would be very improbable; and we do not need to worry about what will happen when the present Government go out of office—we shall then re-nationalise the industry.
That brings me to the simple principle which we ask the Minister to accept, namely, that when private enterprise fails to do its job from the point of view of the national economy, the Minister and the Board shall have the power to apply sanctions similar to those which apply in agriculture, and acquire by compulsion, with the necessary provision for arbitration.
It is patent to everybody not only in the Committee but throughout the country that the development of the iron and steel industry is vital to the economy of the nation and that at this stage we cannot afford to make any mistake. Out of many illustrations which I could give, I wish to refer only to two to prove my point and complete my argument on these Amendments.
The first is that, according to the statistical bulletin of the Iron and Steel Federation, it was necessary to estimate provisionally for imports of steel to this country last year of 1,800,000 tons— ingots and semi-finished steel—from the United States of America and from the Continent. The point which arises is that while we are importing steel there is still a need for development in this important industry.
My second illustration is that, according to the "Iron and Steel Review," the capital necessary to develop the industry so as to fulfil the development plan, that is, for 20 million tons within the next five years, is about £300 million. That is double the amount of capital which has been sunk in the industry since 1946. If a prospectus were put out at present asking people to invest in the iron and steel industry for future development, and the sum to be subscribed were £300 million, it would be a long time before it was over-subscribed.
That is a very big burden, but it is one that must be successfully carried if we are to provide the engineering industry with the steel needed to meet its requirements for the export drive. The industry cannot do it for itself, and it will be necessary for the Government to cooperate with the industry both in terms of planning and development and in the provision of the capital necessary to achieve the development plan.
The Government, therefore, have duties, and in fulfilling those duties, especially in the provision of capital, they ought also to have the rights corresponding to those duties. They should have the power of sanctions if the industry fails to do its job. I believe our Amendments to be wise and good and in the interests of the national economy generally. I believe that in the last analysis, if the Minister would only put aside for the moment his partisan attitude towards this Bill and his false conception of private enterprise, he would also see that these Amendments are in the interests even of the Government themselves.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): The hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. R. E. Winterbottom) has covered a much wider field than is

covered by these Amendments. I do not propose to occupy the time of the Committee with an answer to his interesting speculation—on which I do not suppose he expected to obtain universal agreement—about the possibility of securing large sums of money for the industry if and when a prospectus was issued.
Both these Amendments deal with a very narrow point and I wish to treat them separately. The first seeks to add to the methods by which the Minister can acquire production facilities. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that this subsection goes a long way to meet his contention. He argued that if some production facilities were going into disuse, there should be power to keep them going' in the national interest. Under this subsection my right hon. Friend will obtain power to acquire, or take on lease and use those facilities if he is satisfied, after consultation with the board, that it is in the national interest that they should be kept in use. Therefore, the only issue on the first Amendment is whether we should add to the methods of acquisition by saying that my right hon. Friend should have the power of obtaining those production facilities by the acquisition of shares.
If the hon. Gentleman will look at page 25 of the Bill he will there see a definition of what is meant by "production facilities." It means,
premises, plant or machinery used or proposed to be used for the carrying on of any activity "—
etc. It is not very apt to say that we should acquire premises, plant or machinery by the acquisition of shares, and that is one reason we cannot accept the Amendment. If the premises in question were the sole premises of one company and that company ceased production, the Minister would have very little difficulty in acquiring them or taking them on lease and using them without taking over the company.
That is the case where the only asset of a company is one works. Take the case of a company owning several premises only one of which is to be closed down, and where it is considered that those premises should be kept in production in the national interest. If it were sought to acquire control in the company by acquiring the shares, we should be acquiring a great deal more


than was necessary to achieve the purpose of the subsection. Therefore having considered this matter and the hon. Gentleman's suggestions that the powers of the Minister should be enlarged in that way, we feel that, while we welcome his suggestion, we cannot accept the Amendment.
I come to the second Amendment in page 5, line 21. The hon. Gentleman made it clear that the suggestion is that the Board should have power compulsorily to acquire or compulsorily to take on lease facilities, and so on, and pay compensation. It struck me on reading this Amendment as really most curious that, whereas the subsection itself deals with the Minister's power of acquisition, the Amendment which I am now discussing seeks to give the Board power of acquisition. We feel that that would be wrong, and that if anyone is to have the power of compulsory acquisition it should be the Minister who exercises power under this subsection. We feel that it would be wrong for the Board to engage in direct management —

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: I think that the Solicitor-General is omitting from the first part of subsection (3) the words:
If it appears to the Minister, after consultation with the Board …
Therefore, the Minister is brought into the picture, though I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that the method of operation in the terms of our Amendment would be through the Board.

The Solicitor-General: I am not sure what the object of that interruption was —

Mr. Winterbottom: It would not be done unless it were with the approval of the Minister.

The Solicitor-General: —though I was very glad to give way to the hon. Gentleman in the middle of a sentence. The subsection gives power to the Minister to acquire, and not the Board; so this Amendment is quite inconsistent with the body of the subsection, in that the Amendment seeks to give power to the Board to acquire compulsorily. I know that the first line of the subsection prescribes that the Minister shall consult the Board, but the Minister is the person to act.
If we accepted the Amendment we should reach the odd position that the

Minister who has to decide whether or not it is in the national interest that the premises should be taken over will have power to acquire voluntarily, but the Board which does not have to decide the matter will have power to acquire by compulsion. That would be the effect of accepting this Amendment.

Mrs. White: Surely the Solicitor-General understands that when Amendments are put on the Order Paper for a certain day, one has to take into account other Amendments which in fact we put on the Order Paper and which have been defeated. It was reasonable, in framing the Amendment in this way, to hope that our previous Amendment, which would have made the matter perfectly logical, would have been accepted.

The Solicitor-General: I was not making any criticism of the hon. Lady's logic or the logic of anyone who tabled these Amendments. The matter the Committee has to consider is whether or not the words of this Amendment should be incorporated in the Bill. I am advancing reasons, and that is the first one why it would be wrong in our view for the Committee to accept the Amendment.
It may be that the point on which I have just touched could be dealt with by changing the word "Board" to the word "Minister." I fully realise that. I am dealing with the various arguments against the Amendment and the first one is that it is inconsistent. Now I come to the second argument and perhaps this is the more cogent.
Why should one want power of compulsory acquisition in the circumstances envisaged here? The hon. Member for Brightside spoke with great eloquence about the power of sanctions, power to take over in the national interest and power to do things by compulsion. Is it likely that compulsion will be required here? Let us consider the point. Here are premises, production facilities, which are going into disuse. The Minister comes along after talking to the Board and says that it is in the national interest to keep the premises in operation.
He says to the company, "I am prepared to buy these premises, or take over these production facilities on lease." I should have thought that it was extremely improbable, and so improbable as to render it unnecessary to take compulsory


powers, that any company would act like a dog in the manger and not realise some cash value for the premises or the production facilities which they were going to put out of use.
8.45 p.m.
I therefore take the view myself that it is unnecessary here to take compulsory powers, and, of course, one does not want to take compulsory powers unless the case for them is abundantly made out. Where a company is intending to close down some part of its production facilities, I believe that, if the Minister thinks that it is right to keep them going, he will find a willing vendor and not some one who has to be compelled to sell.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I should like to say a word or two in reply to the learned Solicitor-General, who described this as a narrow point. I think he is entitled to say that if he looks at this Amendment in isolation, and not looking at it. as we look at it, in relation to other Amendments which we have put down and about which we have been speaking. It is only when it is considered as one of a series of Amendments that our purpose becomes clear, and is then seen to be not a narrow one at all, but a very wide one. I would rather state our case on this Amendment, rather than in the discussion on the Clause, because I think it will be more convenient, and, I hope, in order.
Our view is this. First, we said that it should not be the Minister who is responsible either for new developments or taking over existing production facilities; it should be the Board. Hence the confusion which occurred over the use of those words, with the Board mentioned in the one place and the Minister in another. However, that Amendment has been dealt with, and we lost it.
Then we said that we believe that, if this industry is to be handed back to private enterprise and the House decides on that course, at least the Government should retain the power of buying out any particular firm or plant where the productive facilities were being wasted and the national resources consequently wasted, or where they were not being fully used or were likely to become even completely redundant, in which case there would equally be a waste of our resources.
In those circumstances, we thought that either the Board or the Minister, should step in and say, "We want these works, this factory "—or whatever it may be" in the national interest." It is no use saying that these works should be acquired by agreement. There may not be agreement. The owner may hold out for a fantastic price.
To take an extreme situation as an illustration, there may be works which are not doing well, in which the facilities are being only half-used; they may be inefficient or badly run. The Minister says, "We want to acquire these works, because, with the international situation deteriorating, we fear that there may be war, and it is essential that we should preserve the steel productive capacity in the country. Therefore, you must not scrap these works."
The owner asks an exorbitant figure, and the Minister, as the Bill is at present drafted, either pays that figure or allows the works to go out of production altogether. The owner of the works may believe that the pressure of international events may be such that the Government will capitulate and pay the exorbitant figure he asks for the works. There may be cases where works are to be closed down, and where the owner might sell the land and the works for some other purpose. The owner may get a very good price in selling his works for some purpose outside the industry. The production facilities would be destroyed if they were sold in that way.
We say that if works are in danger of closing down, if facilities are not being fully or properly used, or if, as we said in the previous Amendment, works are being inefficiently run or mismanaged, which is just as wasteful to the national economy as land which is not properly farmed, the Minister should be able to step in and say that the State must own the works.
That is our plea, and I think it is a reasonable one, though we are not surprised that the Government reject it. The Solicitor-General, quite rightly, pointed out only the legal and technical points raised in the Amendment. We consider this the final test as to whether or not the Government intend that there shall be effective public supervision of the industry.
There may be a case—though we do not accept it—for handing back this industry to private enterprise and for setting up a public board to supervise it. But we say that if the board is to be of any use at all, then the Minister must have the final sanction of stepping in and buying the sort of works to which I have referred. This can be done, if desired, by an affirmative or negative Resolution procedure, but the Minister must have the power of buying works compulsorily should agreement not be forthcoming from the owners.
We look upon this Amendment as one of supreme importance, because without this sanction there cannot be proper public supervision of the industry. We propose, therefore, to record our views in the Division Lobby.

Mr. P. Roberts: How far would the right hon. Gentleman develop the idea

that the Government should be able to buy compulsorily works which they may think are inefficient? He used it in regard to the steel industry. Is the right hon. Gentleman now saying that the proposal that the State should take over any undertaking that is uneconomic should be regarded as Socialist policy?

Mr. Strauss: I should be going right outside the terms of the Amendment if I attempted to answer the hon. Gentleman. I am saying that we believe that if any unit in the industry is not playing its full part in the national interest, then the State should have power to acquire it compulsorily.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 220 Noes, 241.

Division No. 87.]
AYES
[8.58 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Albu, A. H.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Awbery, S. S.
Edwards, W J. (Stepney)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Baird, J.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Balfour, A.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Keenan, W.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Kenyon, C.


Bartley, P.
Ewart, R.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Bence, C. R.
Fernyhough, E.
King, Dr. H. M.


Bonn, Wedgwood
Fienburgh, W.
Kinley, J.


Benson, G.
Finch, H. J.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Beswick, F.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Lewis, Arthur


Bing, G. H. C.
Follick, M.
Lindgren, G. S.


Blackburn, F.
Foot, M. M.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Blenkinsop, A.
Forman, J. C.
MacColl, J. E.


Boardman, H.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McGhee, H. G.


Bowden, H. W.
Freeman, John (Watford)
McGovern, J.


Bowles, F. G.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
McInnes, J.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Gibson, C. W.
McLeavy, F.


Brookway, A. F.
Glanville, James
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mallalieu. E. L. (Brigs)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Griffiths, David (Rather Valley)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Callaghan, L. J.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Manuel, A. C.


Carmichael, J.
Hale, Leslie
Mayhew, C. P.


Castle, Mrs B. A.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Mellish, R. J.


Champion, A. J.
Hamilton, W. W.
Messer, F.


Chapman, W. D.
Hannan, W.
Mikardo, Ian


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hargreaves, A.
Mitchison, G. R.


Clunie, J.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Moody, A. S.


Coldrick, W.
Hastings, S.
Morley, R.


Collick, P. H.
Hayman, F. H.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Herbison, Miss M.
Moyle, A.


Cove, W. G.
Hobson, C. R.
Mulley, F. W.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Holman, P.
Murray, J. D.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Nally, W.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oldfield, W. H.


Daines, P.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oliver, G. H.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Orbach, M.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Oswald, T.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Padley, W. E.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Paget, R. T.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Deane Valley)


Deer, G.
Janner, B.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Delargy, H. J.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Dodds, N. N.
Jew, George (Goole)
Pannell, Charles


Donnelly, D. L.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Pargiter, G A.




Parker, J.
Slater, J.
Viant, S. P.


Paton, J.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Weitzman, D.


Plummer, Sir Leslie
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Popplewell, E.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
West, D. G.


Porter, G.
Sparks, J. A.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Steele, T.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Proctor, W. T.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
White, Henry (Derbyshire. N.E.)


Pryde, D. J.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon E
Wigg, George


Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Swingler, S. T.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B


Reid, William (Camlachie)
Sylvester, G. O.
Wilkins, W. A.


Rhodes, H.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Williams, David (Neath)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Ross, William
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Short, E. W.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Woodburn, RI. Hon. A.


Shurmer, P. L. E.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Wyatt, W. L:


Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Tomney, F.
Yates, V. F


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Turner-Samuels, M.



Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Pearson and Mr. Arthur Allen.




NOES


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Alpert, C. J. M.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Donner, P. W.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Doughty, C. J. A.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Arbuthnot, John
Drayson, G. B.
Kaberry, D.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Drewe, C.
Keeling, Sir Edward


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Kerr, H. W.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Baldwin, A. E.
Duthie, W. S.
Lambton, Viscount


Banks, Col. C.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Langlord-Holt, J. A


Barber, Anthony
Erroll, F. J.
Leather, E. H. C.


Barlow, Sir John
Fell, A.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H


Baxter, A. B.
Finlay, Graeme
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Fisher, Nigel
Linstead, H. N.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. [...]
Llewettyn, D. T.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Fort, R.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Foster, John
Low, A. R. W


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Bevies, J. R. (Toxteth)
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Birch, Nigel
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bishop, F. P.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
McAdden, S. J.


Black, C. W.
Gammons, L. D.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon M. S


Boothby, R. J. G.
Garner-Evans, E. H
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Bowen, E. R.
Glyn, Sir Ralph
McKibbin, A. J.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Godber, J. B.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Braine, B. R.
Gough, C. F. H.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Grimond, J.
Macpherson, Rion (Dumfries)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Bullard, D. G.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Harden, J. R. E.
Markham, Major S. F.


Burden, F. F. A.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Marples, A. E.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden;
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Maude, Angus


Campbell, Sir David
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Carr, Robert
Hay, John
Mellor, Sir John


Carson, Hon. E.
Heald, Sir Lionel
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Cary, Sir Robert
Heath, Edward
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Channon, H.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Nabarro, G. B. N.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Nicholls, Harmar


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Cole, Norman
Hirst, Geoffrey
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Colegate, W. A.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Holt, A. F.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hopkinson. Rt. Hon Henry
Nugent, G. R. H.


Craddock, Beresford (Spe[...]thorne)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P
Nutting, Anthony


Cranborne, Viscount
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Odey, G. W.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Crouch, R. F.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hurd, A. R.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)


Davidson, Viscountess
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Osborne, C.


Davies, Rt. Kn. Clement (Montgomery)
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Perkins, W. R. D.







Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Peyton, J. W. W.
Scott, R. Donald
Turner, H. F. L.


Piekthorn, K. W. M
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Turton, R. H.


Pilleington, Capt. R. A
Shepherd, William
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Powell, J. Enoch
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Vane, W. M. F.


Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Vosper, D. F.


Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Prefumo, J. D.
Speir, R. M.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Raikes, Sir Victor
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Rayner, Brig. R.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Watkinson, H. A


Redmayne, M.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Remnant, Hon. P.
Stevens, G. P.
Wellwood, W.


Renton, D. L. M.
Stewart, Henderson (Fi[...]e, E.)
Williams, Rt Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Roberts, Peter (Healey)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Robertson, Sir David
Storey, S.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Robson-Brown, W.
Summers, G. S.
Wood, Hon. R.


Roper, Sir Harold
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
York, C


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Teeling, W.



Russell, R. S.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ryder, Capt. R. E. D
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Mr. Richard Thompson and


Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Mr. Wills.


Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Tilney, John

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5. (PROVISION OF PRODUCTION FACILITIES TO BE SUBJECT TO BOARD'S CONSENT IN CERTAIN CASES.)

Mr. John Freeman: I beg to move, in page 5, line 36, after "Britain." to insert:
or to cease or diminish the provision of any production facilities in Great Britain.
This Amendment is of considerable importance, but it may not be necessary to detain the Committee for long in discussing it because I should be very surprised if the Minister, assuming that he means some of the things he said in his Second Reading speech, does not make a fairly substantial concession towards meeting the point of this Amendment.
Briefly, the Amendment seeks to place upon the Board the same duties and rights in respect of contraction capacity in the industry as this Clause in any case places upon it in the case of expansion capacity. To see what the ostensible purpose of the Government is in this Clause, I propose to quote a couple of passages from the White Paper which they published prior to the introduction of the Bill. Paragraph 9 of the White Paper states:
The Board will have the general duty of supervising the industry with a view to promoting the efficient, economical and adequate supply of iron and steel …
A little later, after saying that one of the most important responsibilities of the Board will be to supervise capital development, the White Paper continues. in paragraph 13:
If a company should put forward a major scheme which in the opinion of the Board

would seriously prejudice the efficient am' economical development of the industry, the Board will have the power to restrain that company from embarking upon such a scheme.
How can the Board have the power effectually to restrain a company from embarking upon a scheme which would seriously prejudice the efficient and economical development of the industry unless it has the power which we seek to give it by this Amendment?
It is not to be supposed that all schemes are necessarily going to be for the purpose of expanding capacity; they are just as likely, or more likely in the near future, to be schemes for contracting capacity. Since the war the emphasis of our economy, particularly in this industry. has been on expansion; but anybody can see that that trend is already beginning to go into reverse. National production has already fallen very dramatically when compared with the previous seven years. Some of our exports of steel manufactured products have fallen. Presumably that is due to Government policy; it is certainly the result of Government policy to disinflate the economy a good deal more sharply than its predecessors. Presumably that policy will continue.
As many hon. Members opposite have said, steel output is still increasing, and they expect it to go on increasing. Even allowing for the fact that engineering as a whole will probably continue for some time to be a relatively buoyant industry in the fields both of production and export, compared with some of the consumer industries, we must face the possibility that in the next year or two there will be a surplus of steel. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) who


when not being simply an entertainer, lets out a serious remark occasionally, warned us that there will be a quite substantial surplus of steel in the near future, and another hon. Member on the back benches opposite said that salesmen were already touting for orders. If that is true how can the Board possibly accept the responsibility of making a serious and comprehensive plan for this industry without having the same powers in relation to contracting capacity as the Bill gives them in the case of expansion?
If the companies are left to themselves —and we have heard a good deal this afternoon about the degree of independence they are to have with regard to production—we know from past experience that they will operate in pursuit of profit. They are not going to operate in the public interest. The whole purpose and substance of a great deal of the Minister's arguments on this Bill—in spite of paying lip-service to the doctrine of private enterprise—has been that we must harness the profit-seeking urge of private enterprise or we may have a situation too chaotic to be tolerated even by hon. Members opposite.
On Second Reading I said that a great many of these provisions for controlling private enterprise in the steel industry amounted to nothing more than a sham and a fraud. The Minister looked extremely hurt when I said that, and one of his right hon. Friends reproached me for using such strong language. I should like to believe what the Minister has said, but I am extremely sceptical. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If he wants us to believe that these supervisory powers which are given to the Board are anything more than a sham, he can go some way towards proving his point by giving us a satisfactory answer this evening.
It may be that there will not be very many occasions where this difficulty will arise. It may be that the powers already incorporated in the Bill will give the Board substantially the power which it is likely to have to use on most occasions. But it is absolutely inconceivable that circumstances will not arise from time to time in which the Board, deprived of the power which we now seek to give it, and, incidentally, of the duties and responsibilities which we now seek to give it, will

be unable to make any sort of comprehensive plan.
I can foresee that the Minister might find himself in one difficulty about this, because he may say—and I concede that there is a certain substance in it if he says it—that, accepting the validity of some of the arguments which have been advanced, it is nevertheless not possible to place on the Board the duties of preventing a company from closing down something which belongs to it and which, in the interest of its shareholders, ought to be closed.
It is the Minister, not hon. Members on this side of the Committee, who is transferring the ownership of this industry from public to private hands, and if he wants to make the sort of point which I have put forward—that it is a great deal more difficult to do this when the industry is in private ownership than when it is in public ownership I shall agree with him; and, indeed, it is an excellent example of the point which we have so often emphasised from these benches that, whereas one can achieve a degree of negative planning under private ownership, one cannot achieve positive planning. The Minister has, therefore, created the difficulty for himself, if he wants to go any way towards meeting the point we make in the Amendment. It is his own difficulty and he must think of some way out of it.
While we were discussing Clause 4, it occurred to me that the Minister might say, concerning the power which the Board is given in Clause 5 to withhold consent in writing from a project of this kind, and concerning the proposal that it should be applied to a decrease of capacity, as I suggest, that some such power already exists by virtue of Clause 4 (3) which we have just discussed under which, of course, the Minister himself has power in certain circumstances, where it is in the national interest, to keep in use production facilities which would not otherwise be kept in use. But the intervention of the Solicitor-General in the recent debate—an unfortunate intervention in many ways, my hon. Friends felt— has made one thing quite certain: that unless there is some compulsory power here, the reference to Clause 4 (3) is completely irrelevant.
What we are seeking to do in the Amendment is to make certain that,


where there is to be a decrease of capacity, two things shall happen: first. that notice shall be given in writing to the Board, and, secondly, the Board shall have power to withhold its consent. I think there is a slight distinction between the two. To begin with, even if the Minister were to argue that the power to withhold consent was, in the last analysis, unreasonable, nevertheless the necessity to give notice in writing is very important.
It is quite conceivable, and indeed, I think it is more than likely to happen, that in some cases the Board will not be consulted about these manoeuvres at all unless there is some sort of statutory obligation upon the companies to consult it. It is possible that a firm will reduce its capacity in some way without the slightest reference to the Board.
The consequences of that are two-fold. First, it makes certain that no general provision and planning of the industry which the Board sought to undertake would be effective. Secondly, it would make it extraordinarily difficult for the Minister, even if he wanted to do so, to call into use the powers which he has taken to himself under Clause 4 (3). There need be no notice at all of any intention to reduce capacity unless we insist on its being made compulsory at this stage in the Bill.
9.15 p.m.
There are, in fact, a number of other advantages in dealing with this matter on this Clause rather than on Clause 4. To begin with, in Clause 4 there is no obligation, so far as I can see, on the Board and the Minister to consult anybody else who may be interested, whereas in Clause 5 there is an obligation to consult representative organisations, and in cases of decreasing capacity, closing down of works, or whatever, that may be extremely important. Secondly, as I have already pointed out, the really major argument against the use of Clause 4 is that there is no compulsion in it at all.
There are various circumstances in which one could imagine that this compulsion to give notice would be absolutely necessary. Suppose, for instance, the Minister were to say in the last analysis "I am not prepared indefinitely to insist on a company, at the expense of its shareholders, keeping capacity going against the interests of the shareholders.

Even so, it may be highly desirable that, for a limited period, it should be compelled to do so." Suppose a company came along and said it was going to close down some of its capacity with consequences, either economic or social, which the Minister thought undesirable.
Suppose that the Board, if it were given the power we are seeking to give it now, were to say, "We withhold our consent for the present, but will not withhold it indefinitely, but while we examine the situation to see what adjustments have to be made, either by way of capacity, or the provision of alternative employment, or whatever it may be, to cope with the situation." Once again, unless this power is given to the Board in this Clause, I cannot see that there will ever be any means whatever of slowing down such an operation while the Government have time at least to think about it.
I think it is almost inconceivable that the Minister or any hon. Member on the other side of the Committee can allege that the giving to the Board of the sort of power I am suggesting could lead to very serious abuses. One of the advantages about Clause 5 is that it is absolutely hedged around with safeguards. First of all, the company which is proposing to change its capacity has to give notice. Then the Board has got to make up its mind whether it consents, and before it withholds its consent it has to consult, and can withhold its consent only for certain particular reasons—reasons which we hope to add at a later stage. Finally, if the Board does in the end withhold its consent, there is the right of appeal to the Minister.
When one moves Amendments of this kind it really is no good merely putting forward an argument which one side of the Commitee believes to be cogent if it is perfectly obvious that it goes directly against what the Government side of the Committee believes. At least, one can move such an Amendment, and it may be good fun to do so, but one does it knowing one has no chance of succeeding. In this case, however, I ask the Minister most seriously to consider whether anything we are proposing is in any way damaging either to the Bill as it stands or to his political doctrine, because he is the person who, at stage after stage in the discussions, first on the White Paper, then


on the Bill, has assured us that he wants a steel industry which is susceptible to public control, to be answerable to the public interest, and that he believes that he can get it under public ownership.
We have warned him again and again that we do not accept that view and that he is creating difficulties for himself. We are now getting to the point where one of those difficulties arises. He cannot really believe that the Board can carry out the general obligations which are placed on it by this Bill, and which are clearly defined in the passages I have already quoted from the White Paper, unless it has exactly the same powers in relation to substantial decreases of capacity as it has to substantial increases.
There may well be—there are, indeed —difficulties with this Amendment—difficulties which are really more than just drafting difficulties, because I recognise that there is the problem of fitting this power which we are seeking to add through Clause 5 together with the decisions we have already taken on the powers under Clause 4. If the Minister says to us, "In the light of the powers that I have already under Clause 4 I propose to deal with the matter in a slightly different way from that advocated by this Amendment," then we shall accept that. But lest there be any doubt about what it is that we want, the test we shall apply to the answer that the Minister gives us is this: does this solution impose upon the company seeking to close down its works or to change its capacity the obligation, first of all, to give adequate notice to the Board that it is going to do so; and, secondly, that notice having been given. does either the Minister or the Board— we think preferably the Board—have the power to stop it happening if it is clearly against the public interest?

Mr. Robson Brown: I am in full agreement with the general spirit of this Amendment, and I hope that the Minister will be able to find some form of words which will interpret the sense of the Amendment, namely, that full and adequate notice in writing shall be given by any firm which proposes to close down any undertaking. That part of the Amendment should have the sympathy of this side of the Committee. The social consequences of arbitrarily closing down a works are well known to everyone, and

the significance to families is something that I do not need to enlarge upon. I am satisfied that there can be no set of circumstances which would compel any company to close down a plant permanently at a moment's or a week's notice, and a proper and adequate period of notice is highly desirable.
That part of the Amendment which suggests that the closing down of any works shall not be carried out without permission in writing from the Minister or from the Board is something that the Minister should look at again. A tremendous power is given there which could drive a company into financial ruin, and I do not think that that should be allowed to happen.
My own feelings in this matter are that I favour the Amendment in the sense that there should be adequate consultation with the Board about the closing down of a works so that every means is considered by which it can be continued in operation, and that the Board should be wholly satisfied that everything has been done to continue operations. That is necessary, desirable and humane, but I have grave doubts about the second part of the Amendment, and I am afraid that I could not support it.

Mr. Jack Jones: I intervene only to put a point of view which may not appeal to anyone else in the Committee. I support the very eloquent plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. J. Freeman) and I desire to put to the Committee a rather different slant on this question of diminishing capacity.
In the steel industry it is possible to diminish capacity and improve earnings. That sounds fantastic, but it is perfectly easy to take a plant currently producing 5,000 tons a week and reduce its output until it is producing 1,000 tons a week or less. By that conversion the value of the steel produced at the rate of 1,000 tons a week is of a higher value than that produced at the rate of 5,000 tons a week. To do it the furnaces producing the 5,000 tons have to be diminished in capacity, because a fine quality type of steel cannot be produced in high productive types of furnaces.
If a concern reports to the Board its intention to diminish capacity, the Minister should first discover the over-all national trend in that type of production and the amount of that particular quality


before reaching a decision on the subject. I put this forward to reinforce the plea made by my hon. Friend.

Mr. P. Roberts: I ask the Minister to be very careful when considering this Amendment. First, I think that it will be quite impracticable to work it. I hope that the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. J. Freeman), who moved the Amendment, realises the difficuIty, which is that one cannot make a firm, a business or an individual do something efficiently which he does not want to do. That is the great stumbling block to this Amendment, and that is why I think the Minister must be very careful when he looks at it.
With regard to notification, I admit that there is some point in the argument which the hon. Member advanced. I would, however, again warn the Minister that there is the danger, as I hope to point out to the Committee later, of a certain amount of unnecessary bureaucracy under this Clause. The provision concerning notification of the diminution of production capacity will have to be very carefully defined, otherwise a firm or a business which is merely going to take one furnace or one small section of plant off for some time might have to give notification to the Board. I am certain that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee do not want that.
I suggest to the Minister that if we are to have notification it should be about something which is clearly understood, such as the closing down of the firm itself or the closing down of productive capacity in the neighbourhood of some money value, such as £250,000. There must be some definition, otherwise we shall saddle the industry with more paper work, which will not assist the idea behind this Amendment, but will merely tie up the firms and the Board with unnecessary paper work.
I therefore hope that the Minister will not try to make anybody carry on a business which he does not want to carry on, and secondly, on the question of notification, I feel that there should be some clear limits defining that notification.

Mr. Mitchison: As the two hon. Members who have spoken from the Government benches have recognised, there are really two points in this Amendment. The first is notification. I was glad to


hear the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) recognise the necessity of that, and I agree with his conclusion and his reasons for it. There can be no doubt that without notification of this kind the Board will be required to carry out its duties, as it were, with one arm tied behind its back the whole time. There is every reason in common sense. and having regard to the history of the industry, to have changes of this sort notified.
To the hon. Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) I would say this: bureaucracy and forms may be a good warcry, but when the history of the closing down of factories in this industry is considered, I hold that kind of matter of little account compared with the social consequences which may be caused by an ill-considered and unpatriotic closing down of works for reasons that may suit some particular firm. If that kind of thing is to be avoided. then I think we must be prepared to accept a little inconvenience to some few of the people who run the industry in return for avoiding the human horrors that the past have shown us in this kind of matter.
9.30 p.m.
Lest I be accused of being merely sentimental about this, I will put it to the hon. Member and to the Minister on another ground. What it is proposed to do even by way of notification is merely to let the Board know what is proposed. If we attempt to limit the scope of the notification by the sort of general suggestion which the hon. Member made rather vaguely, we shall open the door to all sorts of evasion. We may say that it shall not be done beyond a certain amount or a certain capacity, but the door will be open for it to be done by means of a succession of manœuvres each of which will be within the prescribed limit.
In a case of this sort, by far the simplest plan is to make people say what they are going to do and then leave it to the Board to say whether or not any action shall be taken about it. I would agree with a very small exemption, something so trivial that it did not matter, provided it were clear that it was not in the form to which we are so accustomed in dealing with Stamp Duty, a series of transactions. I would certainly not go beyond that. Every time I should be inclined to err on the side of making someone fill up a few more forms if it


were worth doing in the national interests and in the interests of the full employment of those engaged in. the industry. I would take a chance on more forms and less suffering rather than fewer forms and more suffering.
The second point is a slightly different one. The Clause as drawn requires any proposal which has been notified to receive the consent of the Board before it is carried into effect. I entirely share the views of my right hon. Friend that we must have some limit. Obviously, once the industry has been driven back into the arms of private enterprise we cannot expect to avoid all the evil social consequences that that inevitably entails. One is that we cannot oblige people to carry on steel works indefinitely when they do not want to. Consequently, we get the kind of thing that I remember with a horrid vividness. I remember "Dirty Dowlais," as it was called, in the years between the wars when the whole of that Welsh township was thrown into misery and unemployment because, for good technical reasons, an iron and steel company closed down its works there. I remember other such places in Wales; Merthyr Tydfil was one.
I also remember to this day the streets of Jarrow on a February night when there had just been some change in the unemployment regulations and the only thing that concerned the population of that miserable town was whether or not they would get any more dole as a result of the change. They had given up hope of work. I remember to this day one of the reasons they had given up hope of work. The steel barons had refused to allow a certain firm to start a new steel works in Jarrow just when it was particularly needed. I will not dwell on that because it is within the recollection of most hon. Members, and I feel certain, since we are human beings, that it is within the sympathy of all of us. Let us at any rate do what we can to ensure that that kind of thing never happens again.
Accepting as I do that we cannot oblige a private concern to continue running something at a loss when it does not want to which is probably what will be said about this matter—I want to look for a moment at what is in the Bill. If I may summarise the position, the Minister has certain powers, under the Clause which

we have just been discussing, to keep on, in certain emergencies, in the national interest, productive capacity which would otherwise be disused. Of course, if he is to do that he must know that it is to be disused, and without this Amendment I see in the Bill no means that he will have for discovering that, except by one of those happy accidents which I hope fall to those fortunate people who occupy Ministerial posts, but on which we ought not to reckon as a matter of course in our legislative proceedings.
I therefore suggest that if the Minister has to take any action in the matter, there should at least be some means or other of providing him with the information that there is to be a case. I think we agree about that. Let us take the case—assuming this Amendment to have been accepted—of a company intimating to the Minister or the Board that they intend to close or make a substantial reduction in capacity. What will happen? Mr. So-and-so—I can see him in my mind's eye but it would be invidious to mention any names, and he would probably have been knighted by then—appears at the door to tell the Minister or the Board that he intends to shut down the steel works which are the one source of employment at, let us say, some place in my constituency, which, after all, includes Corby.
The Minister finds that this is a shock, but we are not concerned with smelling salts for the moment. We are more concerned with what the Minister intends to do. It is true that he has power to make arrangements for someone else to carry on these activities as soon as he has recovered from the shock, but that will take him a little time, and one of the important things for which we are asking by this Amendment is that he should have some opportunity of saying to Mr. Tiddlywink, who has come with this sinister and sudden message, "Hold your hand a little. You will put the whole of that town out of work, and the social consequences of what you intend to do will be the misery and unemployment of a large body of your fellow citizens."
Surely it is reasonable that in those circumstances the Minister and the Board should between them be allowed to say, "Stop, hold your hand, give me time to make arrangements. Come back in three months' time, if you like, and ask again, but for the moment you must carry on


because, important though your private profits are, the way in which your fellow citizens have to live in this town is even more important, and I must have time to make the arrangements which I am empowered to make." He is so empowered under subsection (3) of the previous Clause which we have just been discussing.
That seems to me to be the most important effect of this Amendment. After all, the safeguards are important. Here we have a case where, if there is a question of consent, not only has it to be within the limit prescribed but it has in fact to be with the consent of the Board, with at any rate full consultation with a large body of people such as the Board may consider appropriate, and the definition of "representative organisations" is to be considerably enlarged. It has also, by reason of the powers of the Bill, to be with the consent of the Minister.
I take the view, as I hope the Committee will, that in a matter of this sort, instead of trying to limit, by some legal definition in an Act, the circumstances under which the power can be exercised, it is very much better to recognise that those circumstances will differ from case to case, that there are cases in which the power will be necessary and that the sensible thing to do is to leave the power within the discretion of the responsible authorities, taking abundant care that every proper person is heard, and that there is an appeal if the first authority concerned makes a mistake in the matter.
This Clause provides for that, and I suggest that the sensible thing to do, having regard to the obvious necessity for it in many cases, is to provide for it simply in the terms of our Amendment and assume, because, after all, one can assume, that both the Board and the Minister will occasionally, at any rate, usually we hope, in a matter of this sort be reasonably sensible in its application.
I do not want to pay the Minister too many compliments, but I hope he will appreciate that we would believe in him and the Board, at any rate that far. For those reasons, I think the difficulties put from the benches opposite were exaggerated. The Clause obviously is needed. and I hope the Minister will accept it, at any rate in principle.

Mr. Sandys: The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. J. Freeman) and other hon.

Members have pointed out that this Amendment would have two effects. The first would be to empower the Board to require a producer to notify the Board if he intended to close down the whole or any part of his works. The second would be to take away the right of a producer to close down all or part of his works without the consent of the Board. I will deal with the second effect first because, from the standpoint of hon. Members opposite, I think it is the more important.
I hope that hon. Members opposite will recognise that I am as much concerned as they are about the unemployment and social effects which might result from closing down a works. We must assume that we all have good intentions and that we are all moved by the same human kindness as was expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). Let us look at this from a practical point of view. In the main, it can be assumed that a company would wish to close down its works only if it was uneconomic to keep them in production.
As a general rule I think hon. Members will agree that it is unsound from any point of view to keep uneconomic plant in production even including the sociological point of view. That applies to State owned as much as privately owned industries. We have the example, very much in our minds at the moment, of the tinplate industry in South Wales. The former Government publicly recognised some years ago that, when the new continuous strip mill at Trostre came into production, it would inevitably involve the closing of a number of the old hand mills which had become obsolete.
The former Government, wisely in our view, did not attempt to interfere with this process of industrial modernisation. I believe that they were right, not only from the economic point of view; not only from the standpoint of the efficiency of the industry but also, taking the longer view, in the interest of employment in the area. There is nothing worse than to stand in the way of the modernisation, rationalisation and improvement of an industry, because, sooner or later, in a competitive world, there will be unemployment on a much larger scale. The tinplate industry in South Wales is, of course, State owned. I do not wish to criticise or to make any


party point. I have already said that I think that the policy towards the tinplate industry was inevitable. It was right and it was welcomed by the working population in the area. I am merely making the point in reply to some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Watford.
9.45 p.m.
It is the duty of the Board to promote efficient and economic production. It is no part of its business to prevent the closure of obsolete plant which can no longer be run economically. However, I realise, as I think all hon. Members realise, that there may be special cases. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) emphasised that such cases would not necessarily be numerous.
There may be special cases where it is in the national interest for an uneconomic plant to be kept in production. If so, we maintain that the decision to keep it in production should be taken by the Government, which is in a position to judge what is or what is not in the national interest. We consider that the Government should shoulder the responsibility and we have, therefore, provided a power for this specific purpose in Clause 4 (3), to which the hon. Member for Watford referred. Under that subsection the Minister can acquire and keep in production works which would otherwise be closed.
The hon. Member for Watford said that it was no good our relying upon Clause 4 because, among other reasons, it did not provide for proper consultation. I do not think that he is correct. Under subsection (3), which is operative on this point, the Minister, who is given the power in this respect, has to consult the Board. In turn, the Board. under Clause 4 (1), has to consult the representative organisations. They include not only the employers but also the representatives of the trade unions concerned.
I think that the hon. Gentleman will see that, so far as Clause 4 (3) is applicable—I know that he is not entirely satisfied that it covers the point completely— it is not open to criticism on the ground that there would be insufficient consultation.

Mr. Mitchison: No doubt in subsection (3) there is provision for consultation with

the Board, but there is no provision for consultation by the Board with representative organisations. As I understand, there is no provision for consultation on the question of maintaining existing production.

Mr. George Chetwynd: Does not Clause 4 deal solely with additional productive capacity, and not with the closing down of existing capacity?

Mr. Sandys: I am sorry, but that is the way I read it. If that is not satisfactory, I am prepared to look at it. In my view Clause 4 enables the Minister to consult the Board. Perhaps I am wrongly assuming that we are to have responsible and sensible people on the Board, and that, if the Minister consults them on a point, they will seek the advice of those who can express an informed opinion on the subject before advising the Government.
If it is felt that some of these things which we are, I think rightly, taking for granted should be put in black and white we can go ahead on the assumption that we have got an idiot Board and that every single thing which we expect them to do has to be set out in the Bill. I realise the importance which is attached to this, and I will undertake to look at the point and see whether the provisions about consultation in Clause 4 (3) are satisfactory. If they are not, I will see whether something could be put in to make that point quite clear.
Apart from these semi-legal considerations, I should like to say that, in our opinion, it is quite unrealistic to try to compel a company to continue in production, notwithstanding that it may be running at a loss. As my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) said, in such circumstances the company might be driven into bankruptcy. The suppliers, of course, would, quite naturally, refuse to deliver materials, and, Board or no Board, the works would very soon come to a standstill. In short, our considered view on this question is that it is neither right in principle nor feasible in practice to give the Board the power to refuse to allow a company to close down its works.
The question of notification, with which the second part of the Amendment is concerned, is quite a different matter. I recognise, and I am sure that all hon. Members recognise, the hardships and the


damage which can be caused by sudden and needlessly abrupt closure of works. It is more than ever important, in a Bill which provides power for the Government to keep in production works which would otherwise close, that the Government and the Board should be kept fully informed as far in advance as possible of any impending closure of any substantial units in the industry.
I am assuming that the Board will work smoothly, intelligently and responsibly, and I am confident that this will happen naturally and automatically, through the exchange of views and information which we expect will take place regularly between the Board and the industry on all questions of production and capacity. In addition, the Board can, if it wishes, specifically call for information of this kind under the new Clause 13, which I am proposing to move later, in place of the present information Clause on the Order Paper.
It seems, however, that there is a general wish in the Committee for some specific reference to the duty of notifying the Board about closures to be included in the Bill. That being so, I undertake to look at the legal implications in drafting such a provision, and I can assure the Committee that it is my firm intention to introduce an Amendment to meet the point on the Report stage.

Mr. Lee: I am sure the Committee are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said in his concluding remarks regarding the necessity for notification. That, of course, would not give the Board any power to refuse to allow a works to close down. Therefore, we are driven back to the point that only in the event of a plant proving to be uneconomic would a firm wish to close down either the whole or part of it.
Hon. Members on this side of the Committee are only too well aware that at a time when the Government are telling us that they hope to end rationing of steel and price control of every type and description, it may well be that if a firm making tool steels and such like were to decide to put into operation the law of supply and demand, it would be a paying proposition for them to decrease their products upon which the industry itself and the consuming industries depend in order to raise the selling price of a decreased quantity of commodities.
Though the Minister deployed his argument very clearly on the question of uneconomic plant, I wish he had given a little consideration to the point that there may well be a small section of the steel industry making special steels which would have the power to hold to ransom not only the whole of the steel industry, but also, for example, the engineering industry to whom special steel tools of various types are vitally necessary if they are to continue their job of cutting mild steel, and so on.
I hope that the Minister will give some consideration to that fact, because in our experience it is not necessarily the uneconomic plant which might close down. I should have thought that an added reason why the Minister should put this into the Bill is the fact that there is no longer a Consumers' Council in existence. This is the sort of case which a Consumers' Council would have put to it. For instance, if certain consumers were jeopardised regarding supplies because of the threatened closing down of a steel producing plant, the Council would have been competent to deal with the matter. The fact that there is no longer a Consumers' Council makes it all the more important that the Minister should guard against the type of practice to which I have referred.
10.0 p.m.
We have not yet been told why there should be de-nationalisation of the steel industry. I do not want to argue the point now, but that just happens to be a fact. What are the reasons which the Government advance for making such a dynamic change? First, this industry is in fact making considerable profits, and so it cannot be the profit motive. Second, the industry is now producing at a higher level than before, so it cannot be because the industry is inefficient in its production. Therefore, the only other reason that should be in the mind of the Government in making a change is the social consequences of leaving matters as they stand at present.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) have made very human pleas on this question of social consequences. I hope that the Minister will concede that, in considering this kind of Amendment, one of the three points which I have


raised should guide him. The first two are out of consideration because profits are being made and production is increasing, so I hope that he will give more consideration than he has done up to now to the social consequences and that ultimately he will accept the argument behind this Amendment.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The Minister was quite right when he said that we consider this problem of the notification of the closing of works as of the highest importance. We do so because we are aware, as indeed he is, that nowadays if one closes down a steel works or curtails its production seriously one may be killing a township and a whole community, destroying, not only the lives of large numbers of people who work in steel plants, but of shopkeepers and professional workers and people engaged in all kinds of trades and activities. Their livelihood and their future and the future of their wives and families may be destroyed by a decision which in the past has been taken irresponsibly by directors of companies with no or very little responsibility to the public. Indeed, they could not have had, and I do not blame them for that.
We want to be assured that under the new set-up which the Government are proposing, no such human tragedy, particularly on a big scale, shall take place unless it is absolutely essential and unless there are very sound economic reasons for it and unless all the social factors have been taken into account. All those things must be balanced. We got out of that difficulty to a certain extent, though not entirely, in our scheme of nationalisation when the responsibility for closing works was placed squarely upon the Corporation, as the Corporation admitted it in their annual report.
They admitted that they were responsible and answerable. If they had to continue in operation works which were uneconomic and likely to be so for a long time they would no doubt come to the Government and would want to know what support the Government were prepared to render to keep that particular works in operation. The bias was there, not only for dealing with curtailment of productivity, but for keeping works going if there was a good social case and it was not uneconomic to do so.
The Minister has said today that he is trying to meet us, that realising our anxiety in the matter he is prepared to consider an Amendment so that the Board shall at least be notified in advance of any closing of works. But I hope that also includes any proposal seriously to cut down the output of work, which might indeed affect the employment of hundreds of thousands of people. I do not think there is much difficulty about that. As the right hon. Gentleman said, normally the Board will get to hear of any big closing down. The question is what is to happen after that. Here the right hon. Gentleman says that once the Board are notified of any closing down, under Clause 4 (3) the Government, if they so wish, can step in and buy the works if that is necessary to keep them going.
We should be fully satisfied with that answer if, in fact, the Minister were able to buy the works if he thought it desirable to do so. But the Minister has just rejected an Amendment which gave him compulsory powers to buy works going out of production or where the full facilities were not going to be used. Under the Bill he is only allowed to buy such works by agreement, and one can conceive of any number of reasons why the owners of works would not want to sell them to the Minister.
They might want to change the user. They might want to do all sorts of things which would not make them interested in selling to the Minister. There might be cases where they would think it better for the shareholders to hold out for a year or two to get a better price, or where they might think that the Government might give in in a year's time because the international situation was worsening and they would want to buy the works for defence purposes.
Therefore, however strong the social case may be for keeping alive a works, and even if there is an economic case, the Minister is unable to do so, because he refused the powers we asked him to take just now, to keep the works alive if the owners are not prepared to sell them to him or are prepared to do so only if he is willing to pay a price which the Treasury may justifiably say is unreasonable.
As a result of the offer which the Minister has made, we are to have at a


later stage an Amendment whereby any closing of works is to be notified to the Board, but because of his refusal to accept our last Amendment and, indeed, his general unwillingness to interfere with the iron and steel industry, he refuses to arm himself with powers to take over a works which is going out of production, however strong the case.
As the Government are deprived of a power which they ought to have, not only in the interests of the steel industry and its consumers but also very largely the interests of the workers in the industry,

and as the Government refuse the power to keep works alive where they believe that on social and economic grounds it is desirable to do so, we are unable to accept the right hon. Gentleman's conciliatory speech because it does not touch the root of the matter, and we propose to support the Amendment in the Division Lobby.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 222; Noes, 245.

Division No. 88.]
AYES
[10.10 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Albu, A. H.
FoIli[...]k, M.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Foot, M. M.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Forman, J. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Awbery, S. S.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Manuel, A. C.


Baird, J.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mayhew, C. P.


Balfour, A.
Gibson, C. W.
Mellish, R. J.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Glanville, James
Messer, F.


Bartley, P.
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mikardo, Ian


Bence, C. R.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mitchison, G. R.


Bann, Wedgwood
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Moody, A. S.


Benson, G.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morley, R.


Beswick, F.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (LlaneIly)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Bing, G. H. C.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Blackburn, F.
Hale, Leslie
Moyle, A.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mulley, F. W.


Boardman, H.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Murray, J. D.


Bowden, H. W.
Hamilton, W. W.
Nally, W.


Bowles, F. G.
Hannan, W.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hargreaves, A.
Oldfield, W. H.


Brockway, A. F.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Oliver, G. H.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hastings, S.
Orbach, M.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hayman, F. H.
Oswald, T.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Padley, W. E.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Herbison, Miss M.
Paget, R. T.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Callaghan, L. J.
Hobson, C. R.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Carmichael, J.
Holman, P.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Houghton, Douglas
Pannell, Charles


Champion, A. J.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Pargiter, G. A.


Chapman, W. D.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Parker, J.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Clunie, J.
Hughes, Heotor (Aberdeen, N.)
Popplewoll, E.


Coldrick, W
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Porter, G.


Collick, P. H.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Cove, W. G.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Proctor, W. T.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Isaaos, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pryde, D. J.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Janner, B.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Rhodes, H.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Roberts, Cor[...]nwy (Caernarvon)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Deer, G.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Ross, William


Delargy, H. J.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Dodds, N. N.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Short, E. W.


Donnelly, D. L.
Keenan, W.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Kenyon, C.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J C.
King, Dr. H. M.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lewis, Arthur
Stater, J.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Lindgren, G. S.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
MacColl, J. E.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank



Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
McGhee, H. G.
Sparks, J. A.


Ewart, R.
McGovern, J.
Steele, T.


Fernyhough, E.
McInnes, J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Fienburgh, W.
McLeavy, F.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Finch, H. J.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)




Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Williams, David (Neath)


Swingler, S. T.
Viant, S. P.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Sylvester, G. O.
Wallace, H. W
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Weitzman, D.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
West, D. G.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Wheatley, Rt Hon. John
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Wheeldon, W. E.
Wyatt, W. L.


Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Yates, V. F.


Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
While, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)



Thorneyoroft, Harry (Clayton)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Tomney, F.
Wigg, George
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Wilkins.


Turner-Samuels, M.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A B





NOES


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Fell, A.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Alport, C. J. M.
Finlay, Graeme
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Fisher, Nigel
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F
McKibbin, A. J.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Arbuthnot, John
Fort, R.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Foster, John
Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Slone)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Astor, [...]on. J. J.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Baldook, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Baldwin, A. E.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Banks, Col. C.
Gammans, L. D.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E


Barber, Anthony
Garner-Evans, E. H
Markham, Major S. F.


Barlow, Sir John
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Baxter, A. B.
Godber, J. B
Maude, Angus


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Gough, C. F. H
Medlicott, Brig. F


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Graham, Sir Fergus
Mellor, Sir John


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Grimond, J.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Nabarro, G. D. N


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Nicholls, Harmar


Birch, Nigel
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Bishop, F. P.
Harden, J. R. E.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Black, C. W.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P


Bowen, E. R.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Nutting, Anthony


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Hay, John
Odey, G. W.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Heald, Sir Lionel
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Heath, Edward
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Higgs, J. M. C.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Bullard, D. G
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wynthenahawe)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)


BulIus, Wing Commander E. E
Hirst, Geoffrey
Osborne, C.


Burden, F. F. A.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hollis, M. G.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Campbell, Sir David
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M


Carr, Robert
Holt, A. F.
Peyton, J W. W.


Carson, Hon. E.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Cary, Sir Robert
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Channon, H.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Pitman, I. J.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Powell, J. Enoch


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth. W.)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Cole, Norman
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Profumo, J. D.


Colegate, W. A.
Hurd, A. R.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Redmayne, M.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Renton, D. L. M.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F C
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Crouch, R. F
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Robertson, Sir David


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Robson-Brown, W.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Keeling, Sir Edward
Roper, Sir Harold


Davidson, Viscountess
Kerr, H. W.
Ropner, Col, Sir Leonard


Davies, Rt. Hn Clement (Montgomery)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Russell, R. S.


Dighy, S. Wingfield
Lambton, Viscount
Ryder, Capt. R. E, D.


Dodds-Parker, A. D
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Sandys, Rt Hon. D.


Donaldson, Cmdr C. E McA
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Donner, P. W.
Leather, E. H. C.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Ree[...]dale)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Soott, R. Donald


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R


Drayson, G. B
Linstead, H. N.
Shepherd, William


Drewe, C.
Llewellyn, D. T
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Duncan, Capt. J A L
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Duthie, W. S
Low, A. R. W.
Speir, R. M.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Erroll, F. J.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)







Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Tilney, John
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Stevens, G. P.
Touche, Sir Gordon
Wellwood, W.


Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Turner, H. F. L.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Turton, R. H.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Storey, S.
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Strauss, Henry (Norwi[...]h, S.)
Vane, W. M. F.
Wills, G.


Summers, G. S.
Vosper, D. F.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Wade, D. W.
Wood, Hon. R.


Teeling, W.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
York, C.


Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Wakefield, Sir Woven (St. Marylebone)



Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Mr. Butcher and Mr. Kaherry.


Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N
Watkinson, H. A.

Mr. P. Roberts: I beg to move, in page 5, line 36, after "Britain," to insert:
other than facilities costing less than two hundred and fifty thousand pounds in any one year.
We turn from discussing the question of closing down steel works and production facilities to that of developing and creating production facilities. The point to which I wish to draw attention is that we are seeking the right to prevent a firm from spending its own money on its own property in its own way in order to provide employment for its own people. We are seeking to prevent an employer from exercising that right, and I suggest that any Conservative Administration must be quite satisfied that the safeguards in the Bill for the right of the individual are sufficient to prevent either the individual or the firm from suffering injustice or, what may be even worse, feeling a sense of injustice.
The Clause makes it imperative that any form of increase in production facilities shall be notified to the Board, if the Board so decide. There is no limit in the Bill to the amount of development which must be notified to the Board. On the face of it—and I sincerely hope that the Parlimentary Secretary can satisfy the Committee on this point—any increase in production facilities, any proposed development, must be notified to the Board if the Board if the Board define it as having to be notified. Even more important, the firm cannot go ahead with the development until it has received the approval of the Board.
I suggest that if we insert some sort of limit which will define for the Board the amount below which the firm need not notify, then we shall be preventing a form of bureaucratic control which, in my submission, would merely hinder the efficient production of steel. There was such a feeling in certain sections of the industry that the ironfounders, and those interested in iron founding and casting, have now

been excluded—or will be—from this form of notification of development. Under the Bill as it stands there are various steel firms, who are coming within the orbit of the Bill, who were not within the orbit of the nationalisation Act. These are small firms, and many of them are situated in and around Sheffield, and some in Birmingham. I want to make certain—this is the point I put to the Parliamentary Secretary—that the Bill as at present drafted gives sufficient safeguard that these small firms will not have to give notification to the Board whenever they want a small industrial expansion.
The Clause as now drawn refers to the definition which the Board must make before notification is necessary, and one must assume, and I think the Committee will assume, that the Board, when it gives this definition, will not be unreasonable. I think we must accept that, but I would point out that the definition which the Board can give can be referred to by its size—in other words, tonnage size—by money. Or by a class of product.
Therefore, it is quite possible for the Board to define a special class of product; perhaps some special steel. In this case of special steel the development limit may be only £50,000 or £100,000 in any one year, because, as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen appreciate, the production of this special steel, some of which amounts to as much as £200 per ton, does need special forms of development. I am particularly interested in the case if this form of special steel. Iwant to be certain that the Board cannot by its definition of class of product create a limit so low as to make the individual firm spend much of its time filling up unnecessary forms for small amounts.
The limiting definition which I have put in this Amendment is the figure of £250,000. I shall be very interested to hear from whoever is to reply for the Government whether in his view he thinks that the Board will deal with develop-


ments of anything under £2 million. The suggestion I put to the Government is this, that if the Government are thinking of dealing with large developments of £2 million or £3 million, then obviously the Clause is drawn quite sufficiently for their purpose; but I do not believe that in the case of the small amounts it is the intention of the Government, or the intention of the Board, for that matter, to go into these small details.
I want to be quite certain that the Minister is satisfied that the Clause as it is now drawn does give the safeguards which I have outlined. There is also the question of a form of appeal, which we shall come to tomorrow. We want to be satisfied that the form of appeal is also a safeguard in this respect.
I will end—in order to give the Parliamentary Secretary an opportunity to reply—by saying this, that in and around Sheffield, there is a number of firms who need the assurance that the Clause as it is now drawn cannot be used and will not be used for the small sort of development which I have outlined. If we can get that assurance from the Government, I am sure there will be a great deal of satisfaction.

Mr. Low: I should like to do my best in a very few minutes to satisfy the fears which my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) has put before the Committee. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that it is not the intention that the Board shall require small schemes to be submitted to them or that the Board shall have powers to refuse their consent to small schemes. My hon. Friend has mentioned one or two safeguards that he has found in the Bill. We considered various forms of words designed to exempt from submission all proposals which in their entirety, taking in any related proposals made over a period by the same firm, cost less than a specified sum.
But we found it was impossible to fix such an exemption into the Clause for this reason. Before the submission of any scheme the only person who could decide whether the cost of the proposal would be less than £x would be the manufacturer himself. It might well be that at the start of the work he genuinely felt that the proposal would cost less than £x, but that subsequently, for one reason or another,

it was clear that it would cost more. What would happen then? Ought the Board to be able at that moment to stop all work while it considers the proposals and perhaps stop the scheme altogether? That clearly would be wasteful of resources and money and would be nonsensical. We could not come to the Committee with a proposal like that.
So we chose to rely on the Board's good sense and on the wording of subsection (3) that consent could only be refused if the Board considered
that the proposal will seriously prejudice the efficient and economic development of the production facilities in Great Britain.
Then there are further safeguards in case the Board should not act as sensibly as we are certain they will do. Subsection (2) provides for consultation by the Board with the object of avoiding the submission of schemes which the Board could not conceivably veto. Finally, there is the right of appeal to which my hon. Friend referred.
My hon. Friend had one other fear, He mentioned the words "class of products" in Clause 5, subsections (1) and (2). These words enable the Board in their notice to exempt proposals relating to certain classes of products from submission to them for their consent. That is the only purpose of these words, and I can assure my hon. Friend that they will not make it possible for the Board to circumvent the general intention of the Clause. There is, in our opinion, no further safeguard or limitation needed, and I hope my hon. Friend will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: I want to make it clear beyond a shadow of ambiguity that the hon. Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) neither represents Sheffield nor the opinions of the great majority of the people of Sheffield, nor the industry for which he has spoken.

Mr. Roberts: I was hoping that my hon. Friend would give us some idea of the figure he was going to express to the Board. I may get that at a later stage, and in the meantime I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
To report Progress; and ask leave to sit again.—[Sir H. Butcher.]
Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

FURTHER EDUCATION, SCOTLAND (MAINTENANCE GRANTS)

10.30 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison (Lanarkshire, North): I beg to move:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Education Authority Bursaries (Scotland) (Amendment No. 1) Regulations, 1952 (S.I., 1952, No. 2215), dated 18th December, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th December, be annulled.
My purpose is to draw attention to the inadequacy of the bursaries which are provided under the new Regulations. Since 1947 there have been three sets of Regulations dealing with the bursaries which may be provided by the local education authorities in Scotland. The first set, in 1947, laid down that there should be a maximum of £80 as a maintenance grant for students living at home, and that covered the term period only. For those living away from home an additional grant had to be made. The Regulations also provided an additional grant of £25 for vacation periods.
The second set of Regulations, in 1949, changed the amounts, and for a very good reason. They laid down minimum instead of maximum grants. It had been found that a number of education authorities in Scotland were giving grants which were much less than the maximum allowed, and there was great variation in the amounts. The 1949 Regulations provided a minimum weekly grant of £1 5s. during term period plus a £5 maintenance grant during the vacation period for students living at home and £2 weekly during the term period plus the £5 vacation allowance for the student living away from home in either lodgings or a hostel.
The Regulations against which we are praying have increased the amounts of the awards, a student living at home now being eligible for a maintenance grant of £1 10s. weekly during the term period, and a student living away from home a grant of £2 10s. during the term period, and both types of student will also receive the £5 vacation allowance. There has thus been an increase of 5s. per week for the student living at home and 10s. per week for the student living away from home.
Our contention is that those increases are by no means adequate to meet the increased cost of living since the last Regulations were made. Indeed, we say that they cannot meet the increase in the cost of living caused by the considered policy of the present Government ever since they came to power. It may be said that these are minimum awards, but what we usually find is that when a minimum is set most local authorities, whatever their political colour, make it a maximum. We believe that these grants are so small that it will mean that many Scottish students of real ability will be prevented from going to a university because of their financial situation. In other words, these grants will do away with equality of opportunity in education.
That is a very serious matter for the individual student, but from the point of view of the nation it is even more serious. We realise that as a nation we face grave economic difficulties. One of the ways we can help to overcome them is by ensuring that one of our finest assets is used to the full. In Scotland, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, one of the finest assets we have is the ability of our young men and women. If we really want to overcome the economic difficulties of this island, which depends so much on imports from other countries, we have to ensure that the skill and ability of our people is developed to the full. For that reason particularly I beg the Joint UnderSecretary to ensure that these grants are raised in the near future.
The position is made worse when compared with what is given to English students at provincial universities. I know in England there is a different system of State scholarship; but when the Minister decides what is to be given under State scholarships he advises local education authorities to give grants at the same rate. I know that the education authorities do not always accept the advice of the Minister, but I wish to give one or two examples to show how much worse off is the Scottish student compared with the English student.
The English student living at home receives £3 10s. weekly as a maintenance grant, compared with £1 10s. which the Scottish student receives. The English student also gets £40 for incidental expenses and another £20 as vacation allowance, which is a total of £60 against the £5 vacation allowance of the Scottish


student. The English student living away from home receives £5 10s. a week maintenance grant, against the £2 10s. received by the Scottish student, and there are also the extra allowances similar to those received by the student living at home.
On a yearly basis the English student living at home receives £165 maintenance grant against the £90 received by the Scottish student. The English student living away from home receives £218 and the Scottish student £120. I am not asking that the Scottish student should at this time receive what the English student is receiving. Whatever is given in grants to university students is taken from the global sum for education in Scotland. In other words, if we give higher grants to the students, it means a greater proportion taken from the money which we get for education.
The other point is that, quite frankly, I should be inclined from my own experience as a student at a university from a working class home—and perhaps also from my Scottish thriftiness—to think that English students are rather well treated; indeed, perhaps better treated than our present economic circumstances would suggest they should be. I always bear in mind that, when we are examining these matters, we have to think not only of our student population, but of the whole of our population. I think first of our old age pensioners, and what they are having to live on. I also think that whatever is given in grants to students, or in payment to myself as a Member of Parliament, has to come from the point of production somewhere. I know of many young men of student age working in the pits at the point of production, producing the national wealth some of which has to be used for students or unproductive workers wherever they are.
What we are asking for tonight is an adequate grant for Scottish students. The amounts of grants I have mentioned tonight are anything but adequate. They are making life very difficult indeed for Scottish students. They are making it, as I suggested, impossible for some Scottish students to get to universities at all. I do, finally, beg the Joint UnderSecretary to see what he can do as soon as possible to ensure that Scottish students have adequate grants.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson (Stirling and Falkirk Burghs): I beg to second the Motion.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) has given a very clear and useful review of the position and covered the main factors which the Joint Under-Secretary will have in mind when he replies to the debate. The particular importance of bursary provisions is not one which we in Scotland are likely to under-estimate. We have had it stressed in new ways in the last few years. We wish in these days to try to make sure that anyone who can benefit from higher education is not prevented from doing so by financial considerations. That is a policy in which our bursary Regulations play their part.
In this case, we are concerned with a particular section of the bursary Regulations regarding two types of students, the university type and the pre-vocational type. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can be altogether happy about either of these groups of students. If he asks himself whether, in Scotland, we are getting into the universitles and other institutions all the young men and women who can benefit from university training, I think he has to answer in the negative. A report was issued a few days ago, which had been submitted to the Secretary of State, which made that point again. We can get more university students from Scotland.
As to the other group, the pre-vocational group, it is well known that we have in this country a shortage of skilled craftsmen. Sir Godfrey Ince told us a short time ago that the shortage was likely to increase rather than decrease, and my hon. Friend has stressed the great need for making sure we get the best out of our manpower. It seems that the Under-Secretary must face the question: is there anything more that can be done by way of financial provision, and particularly by way of bursary provision, to make sure we get as many suitable people as possible into the universities and into the pre-vocational courses?
I do not think there is very much doubt that, in some cases, suitable young persons are today being prevented from taking university courses for financial reasons. It is more difficult to make any


general statement about the younger group—the pre-vocational group —because they are very much more diverse and the facts about them are a great deal less fully publicised, but, if it is possible, by way of the bursary Regulations, to help in ensuring that we do get all the people who should be going to the universities or taking the junior type of course, then the Joint Under-Secretary must see that the Regulations are suitable.
My hon. Friend has noted one or two of the ways in which our system differs from the English, and I share her general point of view. We differ, in particular, in the system of State scholarships. I do not think we need envy the English that system it may be perfectly satisfactory in England, but not necessarily one which we want to copy in Scotland. We differ from them in one other financial provision that is fairly general with Scottish students, and that is the Carnegie grant. On this question of a comparison between English awards and Scottish awards, what we want from the hon. Gentleman tonight is a fairly clear statement of the exact position, because there is today a considerable amount of interest in the differences between the practices of the two countries, and people do want to know why the differences exist.
I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman one or two rather more detailed questions about the changes which he is actually making. The changes axe confined to the very small section of the existing Regulations concerned with maintenance allowances. I think we ought to ask him on what factors the figures have been arrived at. For instance, what is the relation of the increase to the increase in the cost of living, which is a point my hon. Friend stressed? I do not think that we in this House can argue with any great satisfaction about the exact rightness of one particular figure or another; we could lose ourselves in a discussion of that sort, but if the hon. Gentleman can give us the considerations that have been in the Government's mind in fixing these rates of increase, I think we will, at least, know a little better where we are.
I believe, with my hon. Friend, that the increases are not enough, but I am also with her in feeling that we do not want to raise them too high, not necessarily to the English level, and not to

such an extent that, vis-a-vis the other sections of our population, they will seem over-generous. I ask the hon. Gentleman why it was that he confined the increases to this one section of the Regulations. One can easily suggest one or two other sections which might have been increased. For instance, books and instruments; there must, I imagine, be a fairly considerable proportion of increase in the cost of these things since 1949.
Again, those meals which are not part of the ordinary maintenance allowance— meals taken away from home or outside the hostel or lodging—the cost of these must also have increased. The cost of travelling certainly has increased. Why are these all left untouched, and only maintenance allowances touched? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would explain what considerations led to the fixing of the maintenance allowance in preference to an alteration in the parents' contribution. I think the selection of the maintenance allowance is the more sensible method of the two because it enables a variation to be made in the proportion as between the junior and senior grants.
I notice that these increases are larger in proportion for the pre-vocational courses than for the older courses, and, bearing in mind the domestic circumstances, that seems to be a fairly desirable arrangement. I am, therefore, in agreement with the Minister on that general principle; but, again, one would like to know what were the factors which led him to take this decision.
Finally, may I stress the general arguments which my hon. Friend put before the House. These matters are of wider interest than they used to be. Nowadays, it is not simply a question of the ability of a student and his future career. That is very important in any democratic society, in which the individual counts so much, but in addition there is a very strong national interest. As my hon. Friend said, manpower—and particularly highly educated or highly skilled manpower—is one of our comparatively few big economic assets, and it is up to the Minister and his colleagues to develop that type of manpower as far as possible.
Besides the students, the parents and the local education authorities are interested in any additional information the Minister can give on this subject. Many parents are delving as best they can, with


the knowledge available to them, into the question why their sons or daughters are getting the allowances which they receive, and no more and no less. I am sure that education committees, with our Scottish tradition, are as generous as they feel they can be, but to a large extent they are guided and their allowances are set by the Regulations. What we want from the Minister tonight is a full explanation of why he has decided on these figures and has allocated them as he has done, and of the factors which prompted him to make these Regulations.

10.54 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: These Regulations undoubtedly raise the allowances for students slightly above those which were in force in 1949. As the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) pointed out, in the case of a student living at home the increase is 5s. a week, and for a student living in lodgings the increase is 10s. a week. But there are genuine doubts and anxiety as to whether this increase now meets all the requirements of our students.
Many of my hon. Friends and I were impressed with the information which was given to us by a deputation from the Scottish Union of Students, who came to see us some months ago. They were able to furnish us with some evidence of the financial difficulties which were facing students, particularly at Glasgow University, and they also told us the results of a survey which has been carried out under the guidance of one of the staff of the School of Economics in Dundee.
Although some of the figures were approximate, and I would hesitate to accept all which were given, it seems to me that the allowances fixed in the 1949 Regulations are now inadequate, and that there might well be room for improvement on those fixed in the present Regulations. I understand that it is the intention of the Secretary of State to look into the points raised by the Scottish Union of Students. He indicated as much in his answer to a Question put to him by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) on 28th November. At the end of that answer he said:
I do not consider it practicable to make any further increase in the allowances for the

present and I therefore propose to make the Regulations forthwith in the form in which they were published. I intend, however, to look further into the points made by the Union".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November, 1952; Vol. 508, c. 104.]
I welcome that assurance by the Secretary of State, and I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will be able to tell us tonight that the review is proceeding. In the meantime, I think we would do well to accept the Regulations which are before us, as they represent some advance on the scale of allowances laid down in the 1949 Regulations.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Johnston: I do not desire to add anything to the general plea so eloquently put forward, but I do wish to ask the Joint Under-Secretary some questions, and to raise with him a matter which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and I have been raising with him, with lack of success, for some months that is, the definition of the words "whole time ", which occur in the first paragraph of the Regulations. There is no definition of the words in the Act, or in the Regulations. I understand that the Department has made a definition, though I do not know what that definition is. The first question I would ask is: what is that definition? I do not know that the definition is such that it forbids any person receiving a maintenance grant at a Scottish University entering into an apprenticeship of any kind.
This knowledge came to me for the first time a few months ago, when I was examining in law at one of the universities. While going over the papers I discovered that a young man from one of the Highland counties had written a series of extremely good papers which were marred by one or two extraordinary errors. The papers showed that he had a thorough knowledge of academic law, but very little knowledge of its practical application. After the examinations I ascertained that, contrary to the usual practice, he was not doing, at one and the same time, an apprenticeship and studying for the degree of bachelor of laws.
I also ascertained that the reason was that if he went into an office and became an apprentice, he could no longer receive the maintenance grant. If he did not receive the grant, he could not continue at the university. The choice open to him


was to go to the university and take the degree of bachelor of laws and, when he had done that, to try and do an apprenticeship; or to do the apprenticeship and forgo the maintenance grant. That, I suggest, is a piece of complete absurdity. It is the worst type of officialdom. It results in the maximum expenditure by the State.
If a grant were made to a person who was doing an apprenticeship the sum which he received as an apprentice could be taken into account when assessing the grant; but, since he is not allowed to be an apprentice, what happens is that he does not become an apprentice and the full grant is payable. The giving of the grant has the least satisfactory result, because it means that the State, instead of having a fully qualified man at the end of the period of grant, gets a person who has the academic qualifications, but no practical experience.
It is unsatisfactory, too, from the point of view of the students and the universities, because it means that the student—particularly in his second and third years—is a very much less satisfactory student than he would be if he were able to do his academic studies along with his practical studies. I have mentioned law, but this applies to all the other professions—accountancy, engineering, and so on—except, curiously enough, medicine, though much of that course is practical. In medicine it does not matter whether or not the student is going to receive a salary or some other emolument.
It is also unsatisfactory because during the academic term the student who is receiving the grant spends two or three hours a day doing his academic studies —and, we hope, some more time in the evening—for only six or seven months in the year. He then goes away to his home, which may be in the more remote parts, in which case he has no access to the law books or technical books required. A further curious fact is that he can engage in any remunerative employment, either during the vacations or university terms, so long as it is not an apprenticeship.
I understand that this definition of the Department, which has resulted in this absurdity, has continued from the time when the Regulations were first made. I, as a Member of the Government of that time, must therefore accept my share of

responsibility, though I must confess that I knew nothing about it until recently, when I became a university examiner. But the fact that the absurdity occurred at one time is no reason for its continuance.
A possible explanation for it is that, as I understand, a similar rule applies in England; but the Joint Under-Secretary cannot say that there is a reason for the absurdity in the rates which he has to pay students and at the same time argue that he must follow the English practice. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Scotland recently announced that he declined to follow behind the coat tails of England. A second possible explanation is that the Minister of Labour's Regulations for industrial apprentices are not unlike those which apply to universities; but that is surely another absurdity.
I suggest that this is the time for the Joint Under-Secretary to announce that he is going to reconsider this whole matter and that, as a result, he will say that the definition of "whole-time" will be changed in such a way that those persons who wish to be both apprentices and university students at one and the same time shall be entitled to receive the maintenance grant.

11.59 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): This has been a useful and, I hope the House will think, a profitable discussion. I welcome it because I share the view of the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and hon. Members on both sides of the House that the present provisions are not adequate. Let us recognise that at the beginning.
In order that we may understand the situation, may I follow the hon. Lady with a brief recital of the history? What she said is correct; I merely offer to fill in one or two gaps. In 1944, when I was a member of it, the Advisory Council on Education drew attention to the inequalities to which the hon. Lady has referred. They did not recommend that we, in Scotland, should institute State scholarships as they have done in England, but they drew attention to the inequalities which existed and advised that education authorities should be more closely controlled by Regulation in the drawing up of the bursaries.
The Education Act of 1946, which most hon. Members here will remember, gave the necessary statutory powers to make that possible, and the revised bursary Regulations were made in 1947. The hon. Lady had a part in that, and I take the opportunity to compliment her, because the step then taken was valuable. There were further Regulations in 1949, the chief alteration being that they prescribed a minimum instead of a maximum for maintenance allowances. These were both good measures and the result was quite extraordinary.
The hon. Lady, I am sure, remembers the figures, but she will be comforted if I repeat them. Before the first of these Bursary Regulations, the total local authority expenditure on bursaries was only £331,000 a year. After the first Regulation, it rose to £766,000 a year; that was in 1947–48. In the next year it rose to £980,000 and in 1949–50 it exceeded £1 million.
It is clear that by introducing these Regulations the local authorities were encouraged—let us put it that way— greatly to extend their bursary provision, and I was delighted that that happened, because I, in my time, was assisted at the university by a bursary, as it then was, as an ex-soldier —a bursary provided by the State; but it is the same idea. I am very grateful for the assistance which I had, and I know how valuable such assistance is for young men and women.
In November, 1949, came the first economy circular. It said, however, that there was to be no curtailment of bursary provision, but authorities were enjoined to ensure that bursaries were awarded only to students capable of profiting. The hon. Lady will remember that those were her words. Our economy circular, last year, repeated those words so that, upon this, also, we are agreed.
In 1950 came the first representations from the students, pointing out that, with the rising cost of living, the bursaries ought to be increased. The reply then given by the Government—and I think a proper reply—was, "We altered these bursaries last year, and you cannot expect us to alter them again within 12 months." Since then, as we know, the students have been making repeated representations. Up to the time that the present Govern-

ment took office, no addition to the bursaries was made.
Last summer, after we had come into office—and I am not trying in any way to make a party point, but merely to recite the history—I and my right hon. Friend thought that something ought to be done, and it was therefore decided to introduce new Regulations.
I have been asked how it was that we arrived at this change rather than that change: why concentrate on maintenance and why not, as we were asked, deal with other matters? I will be frank. We did not have much time to go into the whole matter. We thought that an interim measure, brought about quickly, was desired, and that is what these present Regulations are. This is an interim measure. It is retrospective. It acts from last October and we can fairly say we did the best we could as quickly 'as we could. We made it possible, from last October, for students to get some increase in their bursaries, although I do not say that increase is adequate. I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North and everybody who has spoken tonight on this.
Regarding the comparison, first, with England and, secondly, with the students, as the hon. Lady admitted, and other hon. Members confirmed, it is not possible to make an accurate comparison with the English position because the structure is different. The English local authorities do not act under instructions from the Central Education Department, as they do in our country. Why should we slavishly follow the English pattern? The truth is that, in Scotland, we have had a long and honourable tradition of bursaries and we have set our own standards. I agree, too, that we are under no compulsion to adopt the English method. Let us rather apply ourselves to Scottish conditions, Scottish traditions, and Scottish standards, and make the bursaries adequate. That is what we all want to do.
I think the House would be interested if I said a word about the Carnegie bursaries because they have a bearing upon this matter. The Carnegie Trust, in the session 1951–52, distributed about £15,000 to 1,026 students. The number of university students, incidentally, in receipt of education authority bursaries that year was about 4,800. The amount


to be expended by the Carnegie trustees in the current session has risen to £20,000 and we are informed by them that a further increase is expected next session. I am sure we are all happy and grateful to hear that.
The Trust are prepared, they inform us, to make grants to students holding education authority bursaries, who are qualified and deserving, each case being considered on its merits. The House will be glad to have that information because it is to the advantage of our students. In Scotland, there has long been in addition to the Carnegie bursaries, a number of endowment trusts.

Miss Herbison: Could the hon. Gentleman tell me whether the grants given by the Carnegie Trust are under the same conditions as previously? He knows these grants were stopped for a time and have only recently begun again. Are they under the same conditions, by which there is no means tests for a bursary?

Mr. Stewart: I am not sure I can answer that point completely. We are informed that the trustees are prepared to give bursaries to students holding education authority grants, who are qualified and deserving. I do not think that a means test is imposed. I would not like to misinform the hon. Lady and I will confirm what I have said to her.

Mr. A. Woodburn: If the Carnegie Trust gives a grant, does the education authority automatically include that in the means test, and reduce the grant accordingly?

Mr. Stewart: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the Regulations made in 1949, he will see that is not so.

Mr. D. Johnston: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that a Carnegie grant does not in any way cover a maintenance allowance? I think that is expressly provided for in the conditions of a Carnegie grant.

Mr. Stewart: If I understand accurately the information we have been given by the Carnegie trustees, it means that they are going to apply a fairly wide interpretation of the conditions. Those words, "qualified and deserving," are, I think, very wide, and I feel that the House can be reasonably satisfied that this is a

real addition to the provision of assistance for students.
I was going to say a word about the endowment trusts. I remember very well, when at school at Morrison's Academy, the Jane and John McDougal Trust Endowment, which many of the boys and girls of my time found helpful. There are 300 endowment trusts at present, and they have power to award bursaries to students at universities, training colleges, central institutions. The exact amount of annual payments of this kind is not known, but it is estimated at about £75,000. The maximum amount of individual award made by the trusts varies from £30 to £70.
I mention these things because, as all we Scots Members know, they indicate that there are sources other than local authorities from which our boys and girls can obtain help; and it has been so a long time, and I hope that it will always continue. But that is one of the reasons why it is not easy, or possible, in fact, to make a direct comparison with England.
I have covered the detailed points which the hon. Lady made. I agree with her—I have said already I agree with her —that the grants are, perhaps, on the small side. I would not agree with her, with respect, when she says the grants are so small that many students of real ability are prevented from going to the university. If she has a case, or cases, we shall, of course, be delighted and anxious to look into them, but when she was good enough, with one of her hon. Friends, to come to talk to me on this matter—I think in December—she asked us if we would look into the matter to see what the universities and others thought about this.
Well, we did that, and the information we got from the universities and the training colleges was that they did not consider there was much real hardship among students, but they did think there was some evidence of straitened circumstances. Perhaps, there is not a great deal of difference between the one and the other, but I am reporting accurately what was said to us.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: What did the students say?

Mr. Stewart: I suppose they felt—certainly, I think—that the present scales are


not quite enough to meet those straitened circumstances; not enough money to buy a reasonably decent midday meal—that sort of thing. That is the difference, I suppose, between hardship and straitened circumstances. But I did make those inquiries, and I do not think it would be fair to our Scottish system to say that any student today of any ability is prevented from attending the university because he does not get sufficient assistance.

Miss Herbison: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but surely the information he has just given is about students who are at the university, and what the professors and lecturers said about them. Professors and lecturers cannot have any more knowledge about students who have not reached the university, and who would have reached it if the grants had been adequate.

Mr. Stewart: I quite agree that the hon. Lady is entitled to say that, but I just have not any evidence of it. If she has any evidence, I invite her to present it. I do not believe there is any evidence to justify that view, but I gladly invite hon. Members to give us the evidence if they have got it.
I was glad the hon. Lady said, with regard to the English provisions, that she thought they were, perhaps, a little more than they need be—better, she said, than the economic circumstances of the country justified. I rather agree with her.
The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. M. MacPherson) asked about pre-vocational and student bursaries. I agree with what he said, but I believe that everybody accepts that we do not want the same bursary for both categories. The House will be interested to hear that about 56 per cent. of all students at Scottish universities live at home—I was surprised at that—and so do 66 per cent. of those attending training colleges, which means that home ties and home circumstances exist in a great majority of cases.
I have already said that we do not regard these Regulations as the last word, and it may well be that the considerations put to us by the hon. Gentleman deserve further consideration. He asked how the maintenance allowances were arrived at.

We did not have a very lengthy scientific examination. As I explained, we wanted to do something quickly. We are now making a further examination which will be a little more exact and comprehensive. The hon. Member asked why we confined it to maintenance and did not include the other matters. I agree that in a fuller examination questions of books and midday meals will come up for consideration.
With regard to what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison), as I have said, the students petitioned various Governments. Our proposals do not go as far as the students ask. On the other hand, the students do not ask for anything like the English figure. What we want to do is to get somewhere nearer the Scottish students' requests.
I do not want to say more than I am entitled to do, but I can tell the House that we feel that a case has been made for better bursaries, and I give an undertaking that we will immediately consider the matter. In fact, we are already doing it. If I am asked when we hope to get something done, I can only say that we should like to have the revised Regulations ready for the next university session beginning in the autumn of this year.
I come now to the matter raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston). It is a limited point, and it is also a difficult one. He suggests that a boy learning to be, say, an accountant has to have office experience. In my student days many of the boys taking the commerce degree, which I took, spent the bulk of their days in offices under apprenticeship. It has never been thought by any Government that that sort of boy could be regarded as a full-time student.
Hon. Members may say that it is absurd, but the difficulty is that if one was to make special provision for professional students one would have to make an equivalent provision for industrial students. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not? "] I agree, and I am not saying that that should not be done, but it is a much bigger problem. The Ministry of Labour have a view on this matter. and because of the wide ramifications of the problem no Government has yet been able to do as the hon. and learned Gentleman asks us to do. Nevertheless,


it is a matter that deserves consideration.
I was impressed with this case many months ago. It has been looked into, but I must tell the House that it is surrounded by many difficulties and I do not see an easy way out. I should like to find one, but I confess I am not able to offer one tonight. I hope that I have met the general views of the House. I undertake that we shall give immediate consideration to these matters, and I hope we shall be successful.

11.21 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: The news we have had about the review is very welcome. The hon. Gentleman states that he hopes to have the Regulations out by the next university term, which is early in October. This House is in Recess during August, September and October. Students going to the university for the first time will have to consider the possibility of getting help and whether that help will be sufficient. They will have to know a good deal earlier than October, because the acceptances have to be completed by that time. Are we to understand that these new Regulations may be published sometime in July, because that is what it means?

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I am not able to commit myself to a date. We are

aware of that point, and we shall do everything we can to meet the desire of the hon. Member.

Mr. Manuel: The Joint Under-Secretary mentioned that 60 per cent. of the students lived at home. Has he any information about the distances they have to travel to receive their education and what is the outlay in travelling expenses?

Mr. Stewart: I recognise the importance of that point. I will give the exact figures. Of the students at the universities 55 per cent. live at home. Of the students at training colleges 66 per cent. live at home. I cannot tell the hon. Member how many live a distance from the universities or colleges, but, obviously, a good many do, and their travelling expenses are a considerable item.

Miss Herbison: In view of the assurances given by the hon. Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the. Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir H. Butcher.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.